Source: http://lawsdocbox.com/Immigration/72927324-The-legal-status-of-the-outer-continental-shelf-without-a-recommendation-from-the-clcs-university-of-shizuoka-shizuka-sakamaki.html
Timestamp: 2018-11-14 00:41:30
Document Index: 527317522

Matched Legal Cases: ['Art. 76', 'Art. 76', 'Art. 76', 'Art. 76', 'Art. 76', 'Art.76', 'Art. 76', 'Art.77', 'Art.137', 'Art. 76', 'Art. 1', 'Art. 76']

The Legal Status of the Outer Continental Shelf without a Recommendation from the CLCS UNIVERSITY OF SHIZUOKA SHIZUKA SAKAMAKI - PDF
Download "The Legal Status of the Outer Continental Shelf without a Recommendation from the CLCS UNIVERSITY OF SHIZUOKA SHIZUKA SAKAMAKI"
1 The Legal Status of the Outer Continental Shelf without a Recommendation from the CLCS UNIVERSITY OF SHIZUOKA SHIZUKA SAKAMAKI
2 The Outer Limits of the CS According to Art. 76(1) of UNCLOS, the continental shelf extends to the outer edge of the continental margin, or to a distance of 200 M Art. 76 provides a detailed criteria on the outer edge of the continental margin beyond 200M Art. 76(8) provides that the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf (CLCS) will consider information on the limits of the CS beyond 200M, and the limits of the CS established by a coastal State on the basis of a recommendation by the CLCS shall be final and binding 2
3 Questions The process at the CLCS takes time, and it may be years before the outer limits of the CS is final and binding in accordance with Art. 76(8) What is the legal status of the CS beyond 200M without a recommendation from the CLCS? May a coastal State exercise rights in the outer continental shelf before receiving a recommendation from the CLCS? May a State seek a contract with the International Seabed Authority (ISA) based on its view that a certain area falls within the Area? 3
4 Delineation v. Delimitation of the CS The questions relate to the delineation of the CS delineation: to establish the outer limit of the continental shelf, which is the boundary between the continental shelf and the Area The questions only concern cases where a coastal State has a CS beyond 200M, without any overlaps with maritime areas of other States In cases of overlaps, the areas are to be delimited delimitation: to establish the maritime boundary between adjacent or opposite coastal States 4
5 Outline of the Presentation 1. The provisions of UNCLOS concerning the delineation of the continental shelf 2. The role of the CLCS in relation to the rights of the coastal State to the continental shelf 3. The legal status of the outer continental shelf without a CLCS recommendation 5
6 Outline of the Presentation 1. The provisions of UNCLOS concerning the delineation of the continental shelf 2. The role of the CLCS in relation to the rights of the coastal State to the continental shelf 3. The legal status of the outer continental shelf without a CLCS recommendation 6
7 Criteria under Art. 76 7
8 Procedure at the CLCS CLCS (21 members, experts in geology, geophysics, or hydrography) Submissions Coastal State scientific/technical information on its continental shelf Recommendations Art.76(8) The limits of the shelf established by a coastal State on the basis of these recommendations shall be final and binding. 8
9 Work at the CLCS 77 Submissions 22 Recommendations Japan Submission in 2008 Recommendation in 2012 Established CS on 1 October
10 Outline of the Presentation 1. The provisions of UNCLOS concerning the delineation of the continental shelf 2. The role of the CLCS in relation to the rights of the coastal State to the continental shelf 3. The legal status of the outer continental shelf without a CLCS recommendation 10
11 The Role of the CLCS in Delineation The CLCS only makes recommendations, but plays an important role in the process of establishing the outer limits that is opposable to other States UNCLOS Article 76(8) The limits of the shelf established by a coastal State on the basis of these recommendations shall be final and binding. Bangladesh/Myanmar Case (ITLOS, 2012) Found that the opposability of the outer limits of the CS is dependent on fulfilling the requirements of Art. 76, and in particular the obligation to submit information to the CLCS 11
12 Bangladesh/Myanmar Case Bangladesh/Myanmar Case, Judgment 407. It is clear from article 76, paragraph 8, of the Convention that the limits of the continental shelf beyond 200 nm can be established only by the coastal State. Although this is a unilateral act, the opposability with regard to other States of the limits thus established depends upon satisfaction of the requirements specified in article 76, in particular compliance by the coastal State with the obligation to submit to the Commission information on the limits of the continental shelf beyond 200 nm and issuance by the Commission of relevant recommendations in this regard 12
13 Bangladesh/Myanmar Case 408. The foregoing does not imply that entitlement to the continental shelf depends on any procedural requirements. As stated in article 77, paragraph 3, of the Convention, [t]he rights of the coastal State over the continental shelf do not depend on occupation, effective or notional, or on any express proclamation. The coastal State can only make the outer limits of its continental shelf opposable to other States based on the recommendations of the CLCS However, this concerns the identification of the precise limits of the CS, and is different from the question of whether or not the coastal State has a CS 13
14 Rights to the CS as Inherent Rights UNCLOS Article 77(3) The rights of the coastal State over the continental shelf do not depend on occupation, effective or notional, or on any express proclamation. North Sea Continental Shelf Cases (ICJ, 1969) Based the rights of coastal States to the CS on the concept of natural prolongation Rights over the continental shelf exist ipso facto ( by itself ) and ab initio ( from the beginning ), by virtue of its sovereignty over the land 14
15 North Sea Continental Shelf Cases North Sea Continental Shelf Cases, Judgment, I.C.J. Reports the rights of the coastal State in respect of the area of continental shelf that constitutes a natural prolongation of its land territory into and under the sea exist ipso facto and ab initio, by virtue of its sovereignty over the land, and as an extension of it in an exercise of sovereign rights for the purpose of exploring the seabed and exploiting its natural resources. In short, there is here an inherent right. In order to exercise it, no special legal process has to be gone through, nor have any special legal acts to be performed. 15
16 Legal Nature of CS beyond 200M The nature of the outer continental shelf beyond 200M is not different from the CS within 200M Bangladesh/Myanmar Case (ITLOS, 2012) there is in law only a single continental shelf rather than an inner continental shelf and a separate extended or outer continental shelf (para.362) A coastal State s entitlement to the continental shelf exists by the sole fact that the basis of entitlement, namely, sovereignty over the land territory, is present. It does not require the establishment of outer limits. (para.409) 16
17 The CLCS and the Rights to CS The role and function of the CLCS is not to establish or give rights to the CS beyond 200M to coastal States. Coastal States already have entitlement to their CS (including beyond 200M) as natural prolongation of their territory However, to establish the outer limits of the CS beyond 200M vis-à-vis other States, coastal States are required to establish the limits based on a recommendation from the CLCS What can States do with entitlement to the CS without a clear outer limits that is opposable against other States? 17
18 Outline of the Presentation 1. The provisions of UNCLOS concerning the delineation of the continental shelf 2. The role of the CLCS in relation to the rights of the coastal State to the continental shelf 3. The legal status of the outer continental shelf without a CLCS recommendation 18
19 Questions What is the legal status of the CS beyond 200M without a recommendation from the CLCS? May a coastal State exercise rights in the outer continental shelf before receiving a recommendation from the CLCS? May a State seek a contract with the International Seabed Authority (ISA) based on its view that a certain area falls within the Area? 19
20 UNCLOS Maritime Zones Internal waters Base line Territorial waters Contiguou s zone Exclusive economic zone (EEZ) High seas 12nm 24nm 200nm Continental shelf (CS) Outer Continental Shelf the Area 20
21 The Rights of the Coastal State The Continental Shelf The coastal State exercises over the continental shelf sovereign rights for the purpose of exploring it and exploiting its natural resources. (Art.77(1)) The Area No State shall claim or exercise sovereignty or sovereign rights over the Area or its resources, nor shall any State or natural or juridical person appropriate any part thereof. No such claim or exercise of sovereignty or sovereign rights nor such appropriation shall be recognized. (Art.137) 21
22 Entitlement without Definite Outer Limits Depending on the configuration of the seabed, it may be relatively clear that some parts of the area beyond 200M may satisfy the requirements under Art. 76. Bangladesh/Myanmar Case (ITLOS, 2012) The court was faced with a question whether it could proceed with a delimitation of CS beyond 200M before a recommendation from the CLCS on the outer limits It proceeded with the delimitation, stating: the Tribunal would have been hesitant to proceed with the delimitation of the area beyond 200 nm had it concluded that there was significant uncertainty as to the existence of a continental margin in the area in question (para.443) 22
23 Areas without Significant Uncertainty The judgment of the Bangladesh/Myanmar Case show that there are areas where it may be regarded that there is no significant uncertainty as to the existence of a CS beyond 200M (although the Bay of Bengal was an unique case) An argument could be made that it is reasonable to allow the coastal State to exercise its sovereign rights (exploration/exploitation) to the CS before a recommendation from the CS, where there is no significant uncertainty that the maritime area is included in the natural prolongation of the coastal State However, the coastal State proceeds at its own risk and must make compensations if the area later turns out to be outside the outer limits of the CS 23
24 Areas with Plausible Claims For areas where there is some uncertainty but may plausibly regarded as falling within the limits of the CS, a possible argument that might be made is to draw on an analogy from the jurisprudence on the exercise of sovereign rights in an undelimited area In the Guyana/Suriname case, the arbitral tribunal stated that unilateral acts which do not cause a physical change to the marine environment are permissible in undelimited areas, while activities of the kind that lead to a permanent physical change are not However, unilateral activities in such cases would seem to be more controversial than in areas without significant uncertainty 24
25 Can the ISA Allow Prospecting/Exploration? What if the ISA is submitted a notification of prospecting and an application for exploration from a State based on its view (before a recommendation is made) that a certain area belongs to the Area? The Area is defined negatively under UNCLOS "Area" means the seabed and ocean floor and subsoil thereof, beyond the limits of national jurisdiction (Art. 1(1)(1)) For the ISA to form its own views on the extent of the Area would require an assessment in light of the criteria under Art. 76, which is mandated to the CLCS It is difficult to envisage areas subject to submissions where there is no significant uncertainty that it falls within the Area. 25
26 Can the ISA Allow Prospecting/Exploration? However, there may be some difficulties where such clear areas to avoid are not available: where the coastal State is a non-party to UNCLOS or a recent party to UNCLOS and has not made a submission to the CLCS, and has not publicized its views on the limits of its CS 26
Annex I to the Rules of Procedure of the Commission: Solution to a Problem or Problem without a Solution?
Annex I to the Rules of Procedure of the Commission: Solution to a Problem or Problem without a Solution? Legal Order in the World s Oceans: UN Convention on the Law of the Sea Fortieth Annual Conference
JOINT DISSENTING OPINION OF VICE PRESIDENT YUSUF, JUDGES CANÇADO TRINDADE, XUE, GAJA, BHANDARI, ROBINSON AND JUDGE AD HOC BROWER
141 JOINT DISSENTING OPINION OF VICE PRESIDENT YUSUF, JUDGES CANÇADO TRINDADE, XUE, GAJA, BHANDARI, ROBINSON AND JUDGE AD HOC BROWER Regret that the Court was evenly split on res judicata Court should
PROPOSALS FROM THE FACILITATORS
PROPOSALS FROM THE FACILITATORS Sir Shridath Ramphal Facilitator for Belize (Photo: UWI) Presented to the Secretary General of the Organization of American States 30 August 2002 Presented to the Foreign
International Disputes Concerning Marine Living Resources: Challenges to International Law and Way Forward. Dan LIU
International Disputes Concerning Marine Living Resources: Challenges to International Law and Way Forward Dan LIU Phd & Associate Researcher Centre of Polar and Deep Ocean Development Shanghai Jiao Tong
Why The Law of the Sea Convention Matters in the Arctic
Why The Law of the Sea Convention Matters in the Arctic James W. Houck The Pennsylvania State University Penn State Law and School of International Affairs Oct 20, 2015 1 Overview The United States and
The Opportunity Costs of Ignoring the Law of Sea Convention in the Arctic
Penn State Law elibrary Journal Articles Faculty Works 2013 The Opportunity Costs of Ignoring the Law of Sea Convention in the Arctic James W. Houck Penn State Law Follow this and additional works at:
the national bureau of asian research nbr special report #37 february 2012 maritime energy resources in asia Legal Regimes and Cooperation Edited by Clive Schofield The NBR Special Report provides access
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 163 / Wednesday, August 23, 1995 / Notices
43825 12. If you were a Cabinet Secretary, would you hire this person to be a key member of your staff? 13. What would you expect this candidate to be doing in 15 to 20 years? Privacy Act and Paperwork
The Third World and the Law of the Sea: The Attitude of the Group of 77 Toward the Continental Shelf
Boston College Third World Law Journal Volume 1 Issue 1 Article 11 4-1-1980 The Third World and the Law of the Sea: The Attitude of the Group of 77 Toward the Continental Shelf Maurice Hope-Thompson Follow
07 Maritime Territorial Delimitation and Maritime Security in the Atlantic
07 Maritime Territorial Delimitation and Maritime Security in the Atlantic Inês Sousa Fundação Getulio Vargas ABSTRACT The present paper aims to assess how a redefined Atlantic space, based on common opportunities
INSTITUTE FOR MARINE AND ANTARCTIC STUDIES Sovereignty Dr Julia Jabour Master of Polar Law University of Akureyri Iceland 12 October 2011 3 Sovereignty This seminar investigates the significant difference
The Law and Politics of Canadian Jurisdiction on Arctic Ocean Seabed Project Leader Michael Byers (University of British Columbia) Network Investigators Suzanne Lalonde (Université de Montréal); Ted McDorman
SEPARATE OPINION OF JUDGE SCHWEBEL 1 have voted in favour of the Judgment of the Court despite the considerable case made out by Malta in support of its Application for permission to intervene. 1 have
No. 2561 June 8, 2011 U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea Erodes U.S. Sovereignty over U.S. Extended Continental Shelf Steven Groves Abstract: If the U.S. becomes a member of the United Nations Convention
The "New" Law of the Sea and The Law of Amled Conflict at Sea
The Newport Papers Third in the Series The "New" Law of the Sea and The Law of Amled Conflict at Sea Horace B. Robertson, Jr. NAVAL WAR COllEGE NEWPORT, RHODE ISlAND Report Documentation Page Form Approved