IN DAY-LONG SESSION, COMMISSION ON CONTINENTAL SHELF OUTLINES ISSUES INVOLVED IN ESTABLISHING OUTER LIMITS FOR COASTAL STATES

Press Release
SEA/1673/Rev.1*

IN DAY-LONG SESSION, COMMISSION ON CONTINENTAL SHELF OUTLINES ISSUES INVOLVED IN ESTABLISHING OUTER LIMITS FOR COASTAL STATES

Benefits coastal States might derive from implementing the provisions of article 76 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea concerning the continental shelf were among issues dealt with in a day-long open meeting organized by the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf last Monday at the outset of its seventh session.

The topic of the meeting, the first open session of the Commission, was the “United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea and the Delineation of the Continental Shelf: Opportunities and Challenges for States”.

The Chairman of the Commission, Yuri Kazmin, in his opening statement, said the meeting was especially intended to explain to the experts the issues relevant to the preparation by coastal States of submissions to establish the outer limits of their continental shelf beyond 200 nautical miles. Where the outer edge of the continental margin did not extend beyond 200 miles, no submission was necessary.

States making submissions were required by the Convention on the Law of the Sea to present data and other information to the Commission for its review. The limits of the continental shelf established by a coastal State on the basis of the recommendations of the Commission are final and binding.

[Article 76 of the Convention provides the rules by which coastal States may establish the outer limits of their continental shelf beyond 200 nautical miles from the baselines from which the breadth of the territorial sea was measured. The Convention on the Law of the Sea entered into force on 16 November 1994.]

Visual presentations were made by some Commission members on issues such as the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea and the delineation of the outer limits of the continental shelf; the mandate and work of the Commission; its modus operandi; and the Commission’s Scientific and Technical Guidelines.

The other presentations covered the geographic scope and scientific challenges posed by article 76, and an outline for the preparation of a submission to the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf.

__________

* Reissued for technical reasons.

- 2 - Press Release SEA/1673/Rev.1 4 May 2000

The Commission continued its session with a closed meeting on Tuesday, 2 May. It was scheduled to conclude its seventh session on Friday, 5 May.

Statements

YURI KAZMIN, Chairman of the Commission, said the purpose of the meeting was to flag the most important and challenging issues related to the establishment of the continental shelf beyond 200 nautical miles, and to give an opportunity for the Commission’s members to present their views on those challenges. It was also intended to give a general indication to policy makers and legal advisers what benefits a coastal State might derive from implementing the provisions of article 76.

Furthermore, it was especially intended to explain to the marine scientists involved in the preparation of the submissions how the Commission considered that its Scientific and Technical Guidelines should be applied in practice.

The Commission was created by the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea to facilitate implementation of the Convention in respect of the establishment of a line delineating the outer limits of the continental shelf beyond 200 nautical miles from the baselines from which the breadth of the territorial sea was measured. The Convention, which entered into force on 16 November 1994, constituted the comprehensive international legal framework for the uses of the oceans and their resources.

Under the Convention and under current international law, he said, the continental shelf was a legal term to define a submarine area where the coastal State exercised sovereign rights for the purpose of exploring the seabed and subsoil thereof and exploiting its natural resources. The importance of those resources must not be underestimated. The continental shelf area would in the future be the main source of oil and gas supplies for mankind.

The legal term “continental shelf” used throughout the Convention did not coincide with the geographic or geological continental shelf, which was generally a shallow-water offshore plain area, and which was the nearest landward of three elements of the continental margin. The continental slope and the continental rise were the other two elements. There was a wide variation in the structure of the continental margins throughout the world and in the breadth of their various elements: shelf, slope and rise. The legal term “continental shelf” used in the Convention included all three elements of the geographical continental margin.

He said that the Convention provided a methodology for determining the outer edge of the continental margin beyond 200 nautical miles, composed of two alternative formulae. It also established two alternative constraints for the application of those methods, to ensure they would not extend the legal continental shelf seaward endlessly. The effect of the provisions of the Convention was that practically all seabed oil and natural gas resources would fall under the control of coastal States.

The Convention created an international expert body, namely the Commission, which was required for two purposes: to verify the outer limits of the continental shelf beyond 200 miles submitted to the Commission by States on the basis of the formula contained in the provisions of the Convention; and to provide appropriate scientific and technical advice to States if requested. The Commission was prepared both to accept submissions from coastal States and to provide any scientific and technical advice that States preparing submissions might wish to obtain. According to article 4 of Annex II to the Convention, if a coastal State wished to establish its continental shelf beyond 200 nautical miles, it must submit its proposal to the Commission within 10 years of the entry into force of the Convention for that State.

The Scientific and Technical Guidelines were of a highly scientific nature, he continued. They dealt with geodetic and other methodologies stipulated in article 76 for the establishment of the outer limit of the continental shelf, using such criteria as determination of the foot of the slope of the continental margin, sediment thickness and structure of submarine ridges and other underwater elevations.

Although no submission had yet been received, the Commission was aware that the process of preparing a submission was at an advanced stage in some coastal States. At the same time, the Commission felt that it was its duty to highlight some challenges to and opportunities for coastal States, in order to facilitate the process of establishing the outer limits of the extended continental shelf under the Convention.

Some of the challenges and opportunities facing the Commission included the opportunity for certain coastal States to establish their continental shelf beyond 200 miles, the existence of a time limit for presentation of submissions, and the complexity of the scientific and technical data to be obtained and submitted to the Commission.

He said that other challenges included the wide variety in types of continental margins in different areas of the oceans, as well as the ways of applying the criteria contained in the Convention and the complexity of gathering the technical and scientific expertise to prepare a submission, and the procedure for its preparation and submission to the Commission.

The Commission hoped to give general directions to assist States in preparing their submissions. The Commission would present a number of detailed explanations of the most important aspects of the delineation of the continental shelf in accordance with the provisions of article 76.

HARALD BREKKE gave an outline of the issue of the delineation of the continental shelf in accordance with the provisions of article 76 of the Convention. Using slides, he gave a short historical summary of work on a universal convention on the law of the sea, and a detailed explanation of the central provisions of article 76.

He said the driving mechanism behind the development of the concept of the continental shelf in international law was twofold: the practice of States and legal opinions; and the codification of the law itself. The development of the juridical concept of the continental shelf was largely based on the Truman Proclamations of 1945 and the International Court of Justice’s opinion in the North Sea Cases in 1969.

The codification of the Law of the Sea after the Second World War started with an International Law Commission of the United Nations, which from 1949 to 1956 worked out a draft proposal that formed the basis for the first United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea in Geneva in 1958. One of the four conventions that came out of that conference was the Convention on the Continental Shelf, he said.

A demand for the further development of the law of the sea was recognized and to a large degree channelled through the Seabed Committee, set up by the United Nations in the 1960s. That finally triggered the third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea that commenced in 1973 and successfully resulted in the present Convention of 1982. The Conference defined the continental shelf in such a way that its boundaries could be precisely established. The result was article 76 of the Convention.

He noted that to leave no doubt as to where competence rested concerning bilateral boundaries between States, the last paragraph of article 76 stated that “provisions of this article are without prejudice to the question of delimitation of the continental shelf between States with opposite or adjacent coasts”. The Convention set out the rights for coastal States to establish their continental shelves and to exploit their natural resources. It also referred to the obligations of States, inter alia, to meet the submission deadline of 10 years and the payment of an international tax on all exploitation of non-living resources under national sovereignty beyond 200 nautical miles.

He said a conclusion might be drawn that the provisions of the Convention relating to the continental shelf contributed to a stable regime for the world’s oceans and introduced permanent boundaries.

PETER CROKER dealt with the mandate and work of the Commission, noting that its functions included consideration of data and other material submitted by coastal States in making recommendations in accordance with article 76 and the Statement of Understanding, adopted on 29 August 1980 by the Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea. Other functions included providing scientific and technical advice, if requested by the coastal State concerned, during preparation of the data.

Mr. Croker went on to explain the election of Commission members, their term of office and how their expenses and those of the Secretariat were defrayed. The Commission consisted of 21 members who were experts in the field of geology, geophysics or hydrography, elected by State Parties to the Convention from among their nationals, bearing in mind equitable geographical representation. They served in their personal capacity.

The 21-member Commission was composed as follows: five members from the Group of African States; five members from the Group of Asian States; two members from the Group of Eastern European States; four members from the Group of Latin American and Caribbean States; and five members from the Group of Western European and Other States. The Commission had held six sessions to date, the first being in June 1997.

He said that the Commission had adopted three principal documents: Rules of Procedure, Modus Operandi, and Scientific and Technical Guidelines. The document on rules of procedure included two annexes. Annex I dealt with submissions in case of a dispute between States with opposite or adjacent coasts, or in other cases of unresolved land or maritime disputes. There were provisions for presenting such cases: for example, joint or separate submissions to the Commission requesting its recommendations with respect to delineation might be made by two or more States by agreement.

Annex II dealt with the question of confidentiality, he continued. It allowed coastal States to submit confidential data with provisions for its protection. Legal opinions regarding confidentiality issues had been obtained.

In dealing with classified material and in the exercise of all their other functions, the Commission members enjoyed the same privileges and immunities as experts on mission for the United Nations, he said. In the case of an alleged breach of confidentiality, the Commission might institute appropriate proceedings and make known its findings and recommendations to the Meeting of States Parties to the Convention.

The standing subsidiary bodies of the Commission were Advice to Coastal States Committee; the Editorial Committee on the Scientific and Technical Guidelines and the Committee on Confidentiality; and the Working Group on Training.

The Convention provided for a time limit on submissions of material by coastal States to establish an extended continental shelf, he said. The submission should be made, along with supporting scientific and technical data, within 10 years of the entry into force of the Convention for that State. The coastal State was required to give the names of any Commission members who had provided it with scientific and technical advice.

Presentation on Modus Operandi

SAMUEL BETAH said that the purpose of the Modus Operandi was to specify clearly the procedure followed by the Commission during the consideration of a submission by a coastal State, taking into account the provisions of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea and the Commission’s own official documents, as well as the rights and responsibilities assumed by a coastal State, from the date of submission to the date when the recommendations of the Commission were issued.

Coastal States would submit particulars of the limits beyond 200 nautical miles, along with supporting scientific and technical data, he said. On submissions, coastal States would have to demonstrate to the Commission that the natural prolongation of their submerged land territory to the outer edge of the continental margin extended beyond 200 nautical miles (Test of Appurtenance), and would have to present a submission in accordance with the Scientific and Technical Guidelines of the Commission.

He said that submissions should consist of an executive summary, a main body and supporting data. The executive summary would chart at appropriate scale the coordinates of the proposed outer limits for the continental shelf. It would state which provisions of article 76 were invoked and the names of Commission members who provided advice. It would also note any disputes between States with opposite or adjacent coasts or unresolved land or maritime disputes.

The main body of the submission would include a detailed description of data sets, maps, technical procedures and scientific methodologies applied. It would also include references made to the basic data at each relevant step. A copy of all supporting data referred to in the main body of the submission should be arranged in separate annexes. All data submitted in support of the submission would be considered by the Commission.

The Commission had the duty to hold an initial meeting not less than three months after the proposed outer limits had been given due publicity by the Secretary-General of the International Seabed Authority, he said. At that meeting, representatives of coastal States would make a presentation of the submission to the Commission. A Commission member having provided scientific and technical advise to the coastal State in respect of the submission was not eligible to be a member of the subcommission dealing with the submission.

On the consideration of submissions concerning areas affected by unresolved land or maritime disputes, the subcommission would examine the information on the disputed area. However, it would only take action based on the provisions of Annex I to the Rules of Procedure of the Commission, “Submissions in case of a dispute between States with opposite or adjacent coasts or in other cases of unresolved land or maritime disputes”.

If the evaluation of the subcommittee concluded that more data was needed, a request would be made to the coastal State. The recommendations of the Commission would be based on the subcommission’s report. The recommendations would primarily be in the form of definition of the outer limit of the continental shelf. In case the outer limit was different from that proposed in the submission, the recommendations would include the position of the revised outer limit and the reasons for its revision.

In case of disagreement with the recommendations of the Commission, the coastal State would make a revised or new submission within a reasonable time, he said. In the case of acceptance of those recommendations, the coastal State would establish the limits of the continental shelf accordingly. Those limits would be final and binding.

Questions and Answers

A participant from Australia asked what the Commission’s view would be regarding extension of time for an application.

The CHAIRMAN replied that the deadline was specified as 10 years from the date of entry into force of the Convention for the State. Any decision to modify the deadline would have to be made by the Meeting of States Parties to the Convention.

A United Kingdom participant asked what the Commission deemed “a reasonable time”. He also asked what provision there was for due process, or the possibility of third-party adjudication in the case of disagreements between a coastal State and the Commission. Mr. BETAH responded that the definition of “a reasonable time” would be left to the Commission and the coastal State, and would be considered on a case-by-case basis. The Convention and the Rules of Procedure of the Commission did not preclude that. It would be left to coastal States to consider and take appropriate measures.

In a general discussion that followed the presentations, questions were asked about training opportunities for developing countries, possibilities of third-party dispute settlement and the time limit for submissions by coastal States. The convenor said the problems of developing countries were recognized. The Commission had a working group on training that was currently formulating programmes.

On dispute settlement, the CHAIRMAN said the role of the Commission was not an adversarial one. Its objective was to ensure that things were done efficiently and economically so that disputes would not arise. The Commission was an enabling body to help States making submissions. Issues presented by States would be dealt with on a case-by-case basis. The Commission fulfilled its mandate strictly according to the Convention on the Law of the Sea.

SATYA N. NANDAN, Secretary-General of the International Seabed Authority, said that with respect to time limits, States should be encouraged to present submissions within the stipulated period. On the issue of partial submissions raised by a questioner, he said there was nothing in the Convention on the Law of the Sea preventing that. It should be possible to do so, he said. There was also no time limit expressed in the Convention as to when the Commission’s recommendations were to be made. He asked whether any thought had been given to dispute settlement by third parties.

The Convenor, replying, said that nothing prevented a third party dispute settlement effort. The Commission was not a dispute-settlement mechanism. That was a role for the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea.

On a question of confidentiality posed by a participant, the Chairman said that the Commission had rules governing the issue. The immunity of Commission members was a very limited one. The Commission intended to apply the provisions of the Convention impartially and on a case-by-case basis. The provisions of annex II gave certain responsibilities to the Secretary-General of the United Nations about publicity to be given to the establishment by coastal States of outer limits of continental shelves beyond 200 nautical miles. The Commission would have three months from receipt before it would consider a submission. He said the Commission worked by consensus and had never had to resort to a vote in its decisions.

Afternoon Presentation

Three of the five afternoon presentations dealt with the Commission’s “Scientific and Technical Guidelines”.

OSVALDO PEDRO ASTIZ, giving an overview of Chapters 1 to 3 of the Guidelines, covered the organization and work schedule of the Commission in preparing those guidelines. He said that the Editorial Committee of the Commission was composed of 12 working groups and one oversight committee. The preparation of the Guidelines took place over six sessions, starting in September 1997 and concluding in September 1999. The objectives of the Guidelines were to assist coastal States in preparing their submissions, and to serve as a basis on which the Commission could provide advice if requested by States during the preparation of their data. They would also provide a scientific and technical reference to the Commission for the consideration of submissions and the preparation of its own recommendations.

He explained that when the 350-nautical-mile-distance constraint was used in a submission, the Commission could request technical information relating to baselines, including the source of the data, positioning survey techniques, time and date of survey and corrections applied to the data.

There were provisions for the delineation of the outer limits of the continental shelf beyond 200 miles. The outer limits are defined by means of four rules: two formulae and two constraints. The formulae are the foot of the continental slope to 1 per cent sediment thickness, and the foot of the continental slope plus 60 miles; while the constraints were 350 miles from baselines and 2,500-metre isobath plus 100 miles.

The second presentation, by YOUNG AHN PARK, originally scheduled to be given by S.R. Srinivasan, dealt with Chapters 4 to 6 of the Guidelines, which encompassed several key scientific provisions of article 76. Those were the 2,500-metre isobath, the determination of the foot of the continental slope as the point of maximum change in the gradient at its base and the foot of the continental slope determined by means of evidence to the contrary to the general rule.

The 2,500-metre isobath was a contour line connecting points at a depth of 2,500 metres. A line measured 100 miles from the isobath was one of the two lines constraining the outer limits of the continental shelf. The Guidelines, he said, specified the sources of data and bathymetric measurements which could be used to determine the isobath, as well as setting out the technical description of the bathymetric data base on which the determination was based. The types of bathymetric model which might be used were also given, as were the options for selecting the points to delineate the 100-mile limit. The 2,500-metre isobath plus 100-mile line could not be used as a constraint in case of submarine ridges –- in such a case the 350-mile limit from the baselines was the maximum outer constraint to be applied.

Determining the foot of the continental slope was the most important aim in obtaining data for the submission, as both formulae contained in article 76 for delineating the outer edge of the extended continental slope depended on that determination. It required the identification of the region defined as the base of the continental slope, then the determination of the point of maximum change in gradient at the base of the continental slope within that region.

The first of the two formulae which could be applied was the foot of the continental slope plus 60 nautical miles. As a general rule, the base of the slope could be identified on the basis of bathymetric and morphological information, primarily by the use of such bathymetric data as single-beam or multi-beam echo sounding measurements. In cases where the general rule did not yield a clear determination, geological and geophysical evidence to the contrary to the general rule could be used to determine the foot of the slope. That required consideration of several different types of continental margin.

The third presentation, given by Mr. CROKER, which was originally scheduled to be made by Mlden Juracic, covered Chapters 7 to 9 of the Guidelines, as well as the annexes. The presentation encompassed the difficult issue of ridges, touching upon the difference in treatment under the Convention of oceanic ridges, submarine ridges and submarine elevations. It also covered the provision in article 76 for delineating the outer limits of the continental shelf beyond 200 miles based on sediment thickness.

The foot of the continental slope plus 1 per cent sediment thickness was the second formula for determining the outer limits of the continental shelf. Relevant geophysical techniques and data for determining sediment thickness were seismic reflection and refraction data, gravity and magnetics. Mapping the top of the sediment and top of the basement were discussed, as well as the minimum data coverage. The sediment thickness must be at least one per cent of the shortest distance to the foot of the continental slope. Straight lines drawn to connect those points could not exceed 60 miles in length, and the continuity of the sedimentary apron from the foot of the continental slope to the fixed points must be documented.

The last point of the presentation dealt with the information to be contained in the submission of States on the limits of the extended continental shelf. The submission of States should be divided into three parts -- executive summary; charts and coordinates indicating the outer limit of the continental shelf; and the relevant territorial sea baselines. Other material required would be the names of any Commission members who gave scientific and technical advice and details of any dispute involving the State. The main body of the submission should contain detailed descriptions of methodologies and references to data. All supporting scientific and technical data should be arranged in separate annexes.

GALO CARRERA, speaking on the geographic scope and scientific challenges posed by article 76, said that the signing of the Convention had increased steadily to the current 132 since Guyana deposited the sixtieth instrument of ratification on 16 November 1993. [The Convention entered into force one year later.] A total of 68 per cent of States were now parties to the Convention.

Submissions to the Commission must relate to information on the outer limits of the continental shelf where it extended beyond 200 nautical miles. Coastal States did not have an obligation to submit information on the outer limits of the continental shelf up to 200 nautical miles, nor was the Commission entitled by the Convention to make recommendations on those limits.

He highlighted the need for implementation of the Convention by States, particularly the provisions on marine scientific research. He said the potential geographic scope of extended continental shelves was large, and that there was potential for regional cooperation in gathering data for submission.

He said full implementation of the provisions posed one of the most difficult scientific challenges. There was a problem of resource development. He stated that the Commission faced a dilemma: for either technological or financial reasons, not all countries could take advantage of the potentially considerable resources.

He went on to say that the Commission had not yet received any submission. The Commission was currently investigating the development of training courses, and the strengthening of technical assistance.

The remainder of the presentation focused on a study, by Mr. Carrera, identifying wide-margin regions where the Test of Appurtenance might be applied by States. The study was also carried out to determine the global distribution of those regions, to promote international and regional cooperation in implementing article 76, as well as to highlight the importance of implementing the Convention as a whole, especially the provisions on marine scientific research.

In the following presentation, Mr. Carrera, giving an outline for the preparation of a submission by a coastal State to the Commission, said that if a State satisfied the prerequisites it should take all necessary measures to ensure the establishment of the outer limits of its continental shelf beyond 200 miles.

Several initial questions should be addressed by the State before preparations began: for example, if the outer limits of the continental shelf could be extended beyond 200 miles based on currently available information to date, and the best current estimate of the position of those preliminary outer limits. It should also identify the full cost of the preparation of a submission and the economic and strategic benefits to the State. A national Desktop Study could become a strategic plan of action to prepare a submission. A great deal of data relevant to a State’s submission might already be available from sources outside the submitting State, such as international centres and organizations, and government and academic institutions of other States.

He drew attention to article 244, parts I and II of the Convention, which stated that States and competent international organizations should make available information on proposed major programmes on the continental shelf of another State, outlining their objectives as well as knowledge resulting from their marine research.

For that purpose, States, both individually and in cooperation with others and with competent international organizations, should actively promote the flow of scientific data and information and the transfer of knowledge resulting from marine research, especially to developing countries.

He also drew attention to article 249 of the Convention, which stipulated the duties of States undertaking research to provide the coastal State, at its request, with reports of that research. They should undertake to provide access to all data and samples derived from the marine scientific research project.

He said one of the roles of the Commission was to provide scientific and technical advice to coastal States, if requested, during the preparation of data. Potential regional compilations of data, at the request of more than one State, should avoid unnecessary duplication of effort, time and expense.

The CHAIRMAN of the Commission, in a short concluding statement, once again emphasized that the Commission was ready to implement article 76 of the Convention, and that the 10-year time limit in the Convention was still operative.

The 21 members of the Commission, who serve in their personal capacity, are Alexandre Tagore Medeiros de Albuquerque, Osvaldo Pedro Astiz, Lawrence Folajimi Awosika, Ali Ibrahim Beltagy, Samuel Sona Betah, Harald Brekke, Galo Carrera Hurtado, Peter F. Croker, Noel Newton St. Claver Francis, Kazuchika Hamuro, Karl H.F. Hinz, A. Bakar Jaafar, Mladen Juracic, Yuri Borisovitch Kazmin, Ian C. Lamont, Chisengu Leo Mdala, Wenzheng Lu, Yong Ahn Park, Daniel Rio, Krishna-Swami Ramachandran Srinivasan and Andre Chan Chim Yuk. Mr. Kazmin is Chairman of the Commission.

* *** *