The settlement of disputes arising from conflicting outer continental shelf claims

International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law

Volumn 24, Issue 2, 2009, Pages 409-422

  Nelson, L D M ^a  

^a International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea ^*  (Germany)

Author keywords

Actio popularis; Commission on the limits of the continental shelf; Delimitation of maritime boundaries; Dispute settlement; International seabed authority; Jus cogens; Outer continental shelf, obligations erga omnes; Seabed disputes chamber

Indexed keywords

CONFLICT MANAGEMENT; CONTINENTAL SHELF; DISPUTE RESOLUTION; LAW OF THE SEA; SEAFLOOR;

EID: 72449183149     PISSN: 09273522     EISSN: 15718085     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1163/157180809X421806     Document Type: Article

References (54)

1. United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (done at Montego Bay), 10 December 1982, in force 16 November 1996, 21 International Legal Materials (1982) 1261.
2. A.O. Adede, The System for Settlement of Disputes under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (Martinus Nijhoff, Dordrecht, 1987) pp. 135-136
3. Agreement on Marine Delimitation between the Government of Australia and the Government of the French Republic (New Caledonia) (1982), J Charney and LM Alexander (Eds.), International Maritime Boundaries (Martinus Nijhoff, Dordrecht, 1993) I:905-909.
4. Agreement on Maritime Delimitation between the Government of Australia and the Government of the French Republic (Heard/McDonald-Kerguelen) (1982), International Maritime Boundaries ibid., II: 1192-1194
5. Agreement between the Government of Solomon Islands and the Government of Australia Establishing Certain Sea and Sea-bed Boundaries (1988), International Maritime Boundaries ibid., I:983-984
6. Agreement between the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Government of the Republic of Ireland Concerning the Delimitation of Areas of the Continental Shelf between the Two Countries (1988), International Maritime Boundaries ibid., II:1774-1779
7. Treaty between the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago and the Republic of Venezuela on the Delimitation of Marine and Submarine Areas (1990), International Maritime Boundaries ibid., I:685-689
8. Agreement Between the United States of America and the Union of the Soviet Socialist Republics on the Maritime Boundary (1990), International Maritime Boundaries ibid., I:454-460
9. Treaty between the Government of the United States of America and the Government of the United Mexican States on the Delimitation of the Continental Shelf in the Western Gulf of Mexico beyond 200 Nautical Miles (2000), J Charney and RW Smith (Eds.), International Maritime Boundaries (Martinus Nijhoff, Dordrecht 2002), IV:2629-2633
10. For observations on these agreements see David A. Colson, 'The Delimitation of the Outer Continental Shelf Between Neighboring States', 97 AJIL (2003) 91-107.
11. The Arbitral Tribunal in the Arbitration between Barbados and the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago stated that: "[A]lthough the Parties have used the term "extended continental shelf", the Tribunal considers that This more accurate to refer to the 'outer continental shelf ', since the continental shelf is not being extended, and will so refer to it in the remainder of this Award". 45 ILM (2006) 800-865;
12. RIAA (2007) 165, n. 4.
13. For the functions of the Commission see infra.
14. Rule 46 and Annex 1 of the Rules of Procedure of the Commission, adopted on 11 April 2008 (CLCS/40/Rev 1); see online at: .
15. It should be pointed out that the Commission deals only with the outer limits of the joint submission.
16. Huw Llewellyn, 'The Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf: Joint Submission by France, Ireland, Spain, and the United Kingdom', 56 ICLQ (2007) 677-89, at 683-684
17. Huw Llewellyn, ICLQ Ibid., at 686.
18. On 1 December 2008 a joint submission was made by the Republic of Mauritius and the Republic of Seychelles to the Commission; see online at:
19. It has been noted that '[V]ery few shelf areas beyond 200 nautical miles worldwide form the natural prolongation of only one coastal State. A 1998 inventory identified 29 shelf areas, 22 of which involve more than one State, and only seven of which involve just one State'. Llewellyn, op. cit., supra note 8 at 683.
20. F.H. Paolillo, 'The Institutional Arrangements for the International Seabed and their Impact on the Evolution of International Organizations', 188 Recueil des Cours de L'Académie de Droit International (1984) 139-337 at 190;
21. S Mahmoudi, The Law of Deep Seabed Mining (Almqvist & Wiksell International, Stockholm, Sweden, 1987), 80;
22. A. Pardo, 'Before and After', 46 Law & Contemp Probs (1983) 95-105 at 103;
23. Vincente Marotta Rangel, 'Le plateau continental dans la Convention de 1982 sur le droit de la mer', 194 Recueil des Cours de l'Académie de Droit International (1985) 273-427 at 364.
24. A. Pardo, 'The Convention on the Law of the Sea: A Preliminary Appraisal', 20 San Diego L Rev (1982/1983) 489-503 at 499 n. 42.
25. G. de Lacharrière, 'La réforme du droit de la mer et le role de la Conférence des Nations Unies', in D. Bardonnet and M. Virally (Eds.), Le Nouveau Droit International de la Mer (1983) at 16
26. cited in Paolillo, (Le Nouveau Droit International de la Mer) op. cit., supra n. 12 at 190-191
27. Art. 191 and see also Art. 159, para. 10 of the LOS Convention.
28. See Legality of the Use by a State of Nuclear Weapons in Armed Conflict where the Court considered that the question raised (thaThis the legality of the use of nuclear weapons) in the request for an advisory opinion submitted to it by the World Health Organization (WHO) does not arise 'within the scope of [the] activities' of that Organization as defined by its Con stitution. (Advisory Opinion) [1996] ICJ Rep 81, para. 26.
29. Jens Evensen, quoted in M.H. Nordquist (Ed.),United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea 1982: A Commentary (Martinus Nijhoff, Dordrecht, 1993) II:850.
30. It must be borne in mind that in accordance with the LOS Convention (Art. 286), any dispute concerning the interpretation or application of the LOS Convention which is not excluded by the operation of Part XV, section 3 (Arts. 297 and 298) falls under the compul sory procedures in section 2. Thus in principle an international court or tribunal referred to in Art. 187 can deal with disputes between States Parties concerning the interpretation or appli cation of Art. 76.
31. The LOS Convention stipulates (Art. 76, para. 9) that the "coastal State shall deposit with the Secretary-General of the United Nations charts and relevant information, including geodetic data, permanently describing the outer limits of its continental shelf. The Secretary- General shall give due publicity thereto". The Rules of Procedure of the Commission add: "The Secretary-General shall give due publicity also to the recommendations of the Commission which in the view of the Commission are related to those limits". (Art. 54, para. 3.) This provision should permit other States to assess whether the recommendations of the Commission have been utilized as a basis for determining the outer limit of the continental shelf. In this writer's view it may still be difficult to ascertain where the recommendations have not been followed, given the rules relating to confidentiality, on which see Ron Macnab, 'The Case for Transparency in
32. the Delimitation of the Outer Continental Shelf in Accordance with UNCLOS Article 76', 35 Ocean Development and Intl L (2004) 1-17.
33. See: 'Definition of the Continental Shelf', United Nations Publication, (Sales No. E93V.16, (1993) UN, New York);
34. J.C. Lupinacci, 'El régimen de la plataforma continental en la Con-vención sobre el Derecho del Mar' in PM Arana (Ed.), Trabajos presentados a la Conferencia Internacional sobre Recursos Marinos del Pacífico, Viña del Mar, Chile, 1983, (Editorial Univer-sitaria, Santiago, 1983) 517-518 at 556.
35. See, however, T.L. McDorman, 'The Role of the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf: A Technical Body in a Political World', 17 The International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law (2002) 301-324 at 314-317.
36. On the other hand it has been argued that "[A] court or tribunal may also find that a rec ommendation of the CLCS is invalid." IThis also stated that "the outer limits of the continental shelf established by the coastal State on the basis of such invalid recommendations will not be opposable to other States". Committee on Legal Issues of the Outer Continental Shelf in: International Law Association, Report of the Seventy-First Conference (Berlin 2004) (Inter national Law Association, London, 2004) 788, para. 4.5.
37. Emphasis added. L.C. Caflisch, 'The Settlement of Disputes Relating to Activities in the International Seabed Area', in C.L. Rozakis and C.A. Stephenson (Eds.), The New Law of the Sea (Elsevier Science, North-Holland, 1983) pp. 303-344 at 341, n. 53.
38. With reference to the actio popularis, Keba Mbaye has stated that: . . ."le vrai problème revient plutôt à se demander dans chaque cas si l'état a un intérêt à agir devant la Cour Inter nationale de Justice, soit en raison d'un préjudice qu'il a subi, soit en raison de la violation du droit international à son égard, soit en raison de la violation du droit international en soi, dans certaines hypothèses de jus cogens même si cette notion est encore imprécise et discutée". K. Mbaye, 'L'intérêt pour agir devant la CIJ' (1988) 209 Recueil des Cours de l'Académie de Droit International ii: 227-345 at 316-318.
39. In this context it would be recalled that an attempt at the LOS Conference to invest the principle of the common heritage of mankind with jus cogens status was unsuccessful. What remained of that attempThis reflected in Art. 311, para. 6, which prohibits amendments to the basic principle relating to the common heritage of mankind set forth in Art. 136, without going so far as to state expressly that the principle of the common heritage of mankind is a rule of jus cogens. M.H. Nordquist (Ed.), United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea 1982: A Commentary (Martinus Nijhoff, Dordrecht, 1989) V:241.
40. South West Africa Cases (Ethiopia/South Africa; Liberia/South Africa) (Second Phase, Judg ment) [1966] ICJ Rep 47, para. 88;
41. see, among others, R. Jennings and A. Watts (Eds.), Oppenheim's International Law (9th ed., Longman Group, UK, 1992) 1: 5;
42. I. Brownlie, 'General Course of Public International Law', 255 Recueil des Cours de l'Académie de Droit International (1995) 13-227 at 85-89;
43. C. Gray, Judicial Remedies in International Law (Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1990) pp. 211-15;
44. M Ragazzi, The Concept of International Obligations Erga Omnes (Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1997) pp. 210-14;
45. M. Benzing, 'Community Interests in the Procedure of International Courts and Tribunals', 5 The Law and Practice of International Courts and Tribunals (2006) 369-408, at 395-98;
46. C Chinkin, Third Parties in International Law (Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1993) pp. 214-215, 282-88.
47. Thirlway noted that: "iThis more or less an open secret that the passage in the Barcelona Trac tion judgment-with its specific reference to "protection from . . . racial discrimination", was intended as a public disavowal, by the Court in its 1970 composition, of at least one element in the controversial decision given by the (barest) majority of the judges sitting in 1966". 'The Law and Procedure of the International Court of Justice 1960-1989', 60 British Ybk Intl L (1989) 1-157 at 94.
48. Barcelona Traction, Light and Power Company, Limited, (Judgment) [1970] ICJ Rep 32, para. 33.
49. ICJ Rep Ibid., para. 34.
50. See Art. 48 and the Commentary in James Crawford, The International Law Commission's Articles on State Responsibility (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2002) 276.
51. Case Concerning East Timor (Portugal/Australia) (Judgment) [1995] ICJ Rep 102, para. 29.
52. To the same effect see S. Karagianis, 'Observations sur la Commission des Limites du Pla teau Continental' (1994) Espaces et Ressources Maritimes 163-194 at 189.
53. See also L.D.M. Nelson, 'Claims to the Continental Shelf Beyond the 200-mile Limit' in V. Götz, P. Selmer and R. Wolfrum (Eds.), Liber amicorum Günther Jaenicke-sum 85. Geburtstag (Springer, Berlin, 1998) pp. 573-588 at 581-582.
54. On which see Shigeru Oda, 'United States of America: Draft United Nations Convention on the International Seabed Area', in S. Oda (ed.), The International Law of the Ocean Development, Basic Documents (Sijthoff, Leiden, 1972) p. 83.