Meeting of states parties to the un law of the sea convention

International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law

Volumn 23, Issue 4, 2008, Pages 769-778

  Oude Elferink, Alex G ^a  

^a UTRECHT UNIVERSITY   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CONFERENCE PROCEEDING; LAW OF THE SEA; MARINE POLICY;

EID: 70249092878     PISSN: 09273522     EISSN: 15718085     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1163/157180808X353966     Document Type: Article

References (47)

1. UNTS 396. Hereinafter LOS Convention.
2. LOS Convention, Article 76(8).
3. Ibid., Article 76(8) and Annex II, Article 6
4. Ibid., Article 76(8)
5. See also B.H. Oxman, "The Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea: The Ninth Session (1980)" (1981) 75 American Journal of International law pp. 211-256, at p. 230. The limits of the Area are defined by reference to Part VI of the Convention (LOS Convention, Article 134(3)), which includes Article 76.
6. LOS Convention, Annex II, Article 4.
7. One overview from 2001, which identified 30 States as possibly having a continental shelf beyond 200 nautical miles, indicates that 14 of those States, 12 of which were developing States, would have had to make a submission in 2004 (Issues with respect to article 4 of Annex II to the United Nations Convention on the law of the Sea; Background paper prepared by the Secretariat (SPLOS/64 of 12 May 2001, para. 7). As the document indicates, and is confirmed by later figures (see infra), the figure of about 30 countries might be a conservative estimate (SPLOS/64, supra note 7 at para. 8).
8. Decision regarding the Date of Commencement of the Ten-Year Period for Making Submissions to the Commission on the limits of the Continental Shelf Set out in Article 4 of Annex II to the United Nations Convention on the law of the Sea (SPLOS/72 of 29 May 2001).
9. See SPLOS/64, supra note 7 at paras. 21 and 23.
10. For a further discussion of the different views of States Parties on the role of the Meeting in relation to the Convention see, e.g., T. Treves, "The General Assembly and the Meeting of States Parties in the Implementation of the LOS Convention" in A.G. Oude Elferink (ed.) Stability and Change in the Law of the Sea: The Role of the LOS Convention (Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, Leiden: 2005), pp. 55-74, esp. at pp. 61-65 and 68-73
11. A.G. Oude Elferink, "Reviewing the Implementation of the LOS Convention: the Role of the United Nations General Assembly and the Meeting of States Parties", in A.G. Oude Elferink and D.R. Rothwell (eds.) Oceans Management in the 21st Century: Institutional Frameworks and Responses (Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, Leiden: 2004) pp. 295-312 at pp. 306-310.
12. SPLOS/64, supra note 7 at paras. 17-18.
13. Ibid., para. 18.
14. A similar decision had been taken in respect of the election of the members of the CLCS. In its conclusions the background paper did indicate that States Parties in considering this option for the deferral of the 10-year time limit should recall that the earlier precedents were on matters of an organizational nature, before the Tribunal and the Commission had been fully established and operational (ibid., para. 72).
15. Ibid, para. 31.
16. Ibid., para. 32. The Scientific and Technical Guidelines of the Commission (CLCS/11 of 13 May 1999; CLCS/11/Add.l of3 September 1999; CLCS/11/Corr.l of24 February 2000) explain how the Commission understands the relevant provisions of Article 76 and the consequences this may have for the scope and depth of admissible scientific and technical evidence submitted by coastal States.
17. Notes verbales from the Government of Seychelles regarding the extension of the time period for submission to the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf Note by the Secretariat(SPLOS/66 of 10 May 2001)
18. Position paper on the time frame for submissions to the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf Submitted by Australia, Fiji, Marshall Islands, Micronesia (Federated States of), Nauru, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea, Samoa, Solomon Islands, Tonga and Vanuatu (SPLOS/67 of 10 May 2001).
19. SPLOS/66, supra note 15 at Annex I; SPLOS/67, supra note 15 at paras. 4 and 8.
20. Report of the eleventh Meeting of States Parties (SPLOS/73 of 14 June 2001), para. 73.
21. See also SPLOS/73, supra note 17 at para. 74.
22. SPLOS/72, supra note 8 at para. (a).
23. Ibid., para. (b)
24. See further Report of the sixteenth Meeting of States Parties (SPLOS/148 of 28 July 2006), paras. 65-78
25. see also Report of the seventeenth Meeting of States Parties (SPLOS/164 of 16 July 2007), paras. 56-78
26. D.R. Rothwell, "Issues and Strategies for Outer Continental Shelf Claims", (2008) 23 InternationalJournal of'Marine and Coastal Law, pp. 185-211 at pp. 196-200.
27. SPLOS/148, supra note 21 at para. 72.
28. Ibid., para. 73.
29. SPLOS/164, supra note 21 at para. 71.
30. SPLOS/148, supra note 21 at para. 73
31. SPLOS/164, supra note 21 at para. 74.
32. See the Press Release States Parties to law of Sea Convention indicate flexibility towards countries facing difficulty meeting deadline for requests to delimit continental shelves (SEA/1903 of 17 June 2008)
33. This concerns the document Issues related to the workload of the Commission on the limits of the Continental Shelf - tentative dates of submissions; Note by the Secretariat (SPLOS/INF/20 of 16 January 2008; supplemented by SPLOS/INF/20/Add. 1 and Add. 2 of 7 May and 6 June 2008).
34. See the SEA/1903, supra note 26.
35. Of the States concerned, seven had indicated earlier that they expected to meet the applicable time limit (SPLOS/INF/20, supra note 27). Three others had not specified whether or not they expected to meet their time limit (ibid.; SPLOS/INF/20/ Add. 1, supra note 27).
36. Decision regarding the workload of the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf and the ability of States, particularly developing States, to fulfil the requirements of article 4 of annex II to the United Nations Convention on the law of the Sea, as well as the decision contained in SPIOS/72, paragraph (a) (SPLOS/183 of 20 June 2008).
37. Ibid., para. l(a).
38. Ibid., para. l(b).
39. See LOS Convention, Annex II, Article 8. Brazil submitted new information including different outer limit lines while its original submission was still being considered by the Commission. In a legal opinion requested by the Chairman of the Commission, the Legal Counsel of the United Nations concluded that nothing in the LOS Convention precludes a coastal State from submitting, in the course of the examination of a submission, revised or new particulars of the outer limits of its continental shelf (Letter dated 25 August 2005 from the Legal Counsel, Under-Secretary-General of the United Nations for Legal Affairs, addressed to the Chairman of the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf Legal opinion on whether it is permissible, under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea and the rules of procedure of the Commission, for a coastal State, which has made a submission to the Commission in accordance with article 76 of the Convention, to provide to the Commission in the course of the examination by it of the submission, additional material and information relating to the limits of its continental shelf or substantial part thereof, which constitute a significant departure from the original limits and formulae lines that were given due publicity by the Secretary-General of the United Nations in accordance with rule 50 of the rules of procedure of the Commission (CLCS/46 of 7 September 2005), pp. 12-13)).
40. This language reflects Article 77(3) of the LOS Convention.
41. LOS Convention, Article 76(2).
42. See further Committee on Legal Issues of the Outer Continental Shelf, "Second Report", International Law Association, Report of the Seventy-Second Conference (ILA, London, 2006), pp. 215-249 at p. 217.
43. SPLOS/183, supra note 29 at para. 1 (d). Rule 50 of the Rules of Procedure of the Commission (CLCS/40/Rev. 1 of 17 April 2008), containing a similar obligation in respect of the executive summary of submissions, refers to Member States, "including States Parties to the Convention". Three parties to the LOS Convention (Cook Islands, the European Communities and Niue) as a matter of fact are not Member States of the United Nations. It is not known if the variation in language is intentional.
44. See also D. Freestone and A.G. Oude Elferink, "Flexibility and Innovation in the Law of the Sea - Will the LOS Convention Amendment Procedures Ever Be Used?" in A.G. Oude Elferink, op. cit., supra note 10, pp. 169-221 at pp. 208-209.
45. The arguments contained in the background paper prepared by the Secretariat (see supra) to support the view that no amendment would be involved, relied in particular on secondary rules, which have been adopted in the implementation of the LOS Convention. A similar approach can also be discerned in a discussion paper concerning the recommendations of the Commission (The legal nature and purpose of the recommendations of the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf; Discussion paper prepared by the Secretariat (CLCS/2003/CRP.3 of 17 April 2003), paras. 5 and 9 and following).
46. The background paper in its conclusions suggests that earlier decisions of the Meeting possibly did not provide an appropriate precedent (see further supra, note 12).
47. See also A. Aust, Modern Treaty Law and Practice (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge: 2000), p. 193.