Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7fkt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T17:03:56.083Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Continental Shelf and International Law: Confusion and Abuse

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 March 2017

Josef L. Kunz
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The so-called “doctrine and practice of the Continental Shelf,” hardly more than ten years old, has, through many unilateral proclamations highly different in character and contents, led at this time to a situation which only can be characterized as one of confusion and abuse. The whole development, especially in its exaggerated claims, gives the impression of a triumphant upsurge of national sovereignty, and threatens to endanger the long-established principle of the freedom of the high seas—a norm juris cogentis of general customary international law.

Type
Research Article
Information
American Journal of International Law , Volume 50 , Issue 4 , October 1956 , pp. 828 - 853
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of International Law 1956

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 The principal work is M. W. Mouton, The Continental Shelf (The Hague, 1952). It gives an exhaustive treatment, all the documents and a full bibliography up to 1952. See also idem, “The Continental Shelf,” Hague Academy of International Law, 85 Recueil des Cours 347–463 (1954).Google Scholar See also Ceccatto, Gaetano Nascimento, L’évolution juridique de la doctrine du plateau continental (Paris, 1955, 144 pp.)Google Scholar ; also for documentation see U.N. Legislative Series: Laws and Begulations on the Regime of the High Seas, Vol. I (U.N., New York, 1951); and Report of the International Law Commission covering the Work of its Fifth Session, U.N. Doc. A/2456 (1953), pp. 12 ff.; 48 A.J.I.L. Supp. 26 ff. (1954).

2 See Lauterpacht in 49 A.J.I.L. 16–43 (1955), and his critical remarks in Oppenheim-Lauterpacht, International Law, A Treatise, Vol. I (8th ed., 1955), footnote on p. 68.

3 See also H. W. Briggs in 48 A.J.I.L. 603–612 (1954).

4 See Lotus Case, P. C. I. J., Series A, No. 10; Art. 13 of the Draft on Laws of Maritime Jurisdiction in Time of Peace by the International Law Association, Vienna Session, 1926 (Annuaire, Vol. 32 (1925), p. 526); International Law Commission, Report of the 7th Session, 1955, U.N. General Assembly, 10th Sess., Official Becords, Supp. No. 9 (A/2934); 50 A.J.I.L. 190 ff. (1955).

5 Institut de Droit International, Session de Lausanne, 1927, 33 Annuaire (Part III) 339.

6 C. John Colombos, The International Law of the Sea 56 (3rd ed., London, 1954).

7 Georges Scelle, Plateau Continental et Droit International (Paris, 1955, 62 pp.).

8 Guatemalan Petroleum Law, 1949; Petroleum Act of the Philippines, 1949; Proclamations of Saudi Arabia 1949; of Israel, 1952; British-Venezuelan Treaty, 1942; British Orders in Council (Bahamas and Jamaica, 1948, British Honduras and Falkland Islands, 1950); nine Proclamations by Arab Sheikhs in the Persian Gulf area; the law of Iran, 1950; the Brazilian Decree, 1950; Declaration of Pakistan, 1950.

9 Lauterpacht in 27 British Year Book of International Law 376–433 (1950), and in Oppenheim-Lauterpacht, op. cit. note 2 above, pp. 631–635.

10 Alfred Verdross, Völkerrecht 205 (3rd ed., Vienna, 1955).

11 P. Guggenheim, Traité de Droit International, Part 1, note 3, pp. 391–392 (Geneva, 1953).

12 Kunz, Josef L., “La Plataforma Continental: nuevo derecho internacional in fieri,” 3 Revista de la Facultad de Derecho de México 207–225 (1953).Google Scholar

13 “Some Aspects of the Extension of National Sovereignty to the Adjacent Sea,” 1 International Belations 79–93 (London, April, 1955).

14 Herman Phleger, “Recent developments affecting the regime of the high seas,” 32 Dept. of State Bulletin 934–940 (June 6, 1955).

15 Kunz, Josef L. “The Nature of Customary International Law,” 47 A.J.I.L. 662–669 (1953).Google Scholar

16 About fifteen states have applied it; but many important states, such as the United Kingdom, as far as the mother country is concerned, France; Italy, Spain, West Germany, the Scandinavian states, Japan, the Soviet Union, have not done so.

17 See Oppenheim-Lauterpacht, International Law, A Treatise, Vol. I, pp. 575–580 (7th ed., London, 1948); Colombos, op. cit. note 6 above, pp. 56–58.

18 Gilbert Gidel, La Plataforma Continental (Valladolid, 1951).

19 Op. cit. note 7 above. He speaks of the feeling of “hostilité á la conception hérétique et schismatique du Plateau Continental.”

20 Phleger, loc. cit. note 14 above, p. 939.

21 Thus, the Soviet Union’s claim to an extension of the territorial sea up to twelve miles; Bulgaria’s Decree of 1951 (Mouton, op. cit. note 1 above, p. 328): the extension of territorial waters by Yugoslavia in 1948, by Saudi Arabia in 1949, by Egypt in 1951. U. S. protests were made to Saudi Arabia in 1949 and to Egypt in 1951; British protests to Yugoslavia in 1949 and to Egypt in 1951. See also the Maritime Proclamation No. 13707 of Ethiopia of 1953 (Mouton, lectures, loc. cit. note 1 above, p. 445, note a). There is also a tendency in Canada toward an extension of its territorial sea.

22 Text in 49 A.J.I.L. Supp. 102–103 (1953).

23 See Mouton, lectures, loc. cit. note 1 above, pp. 443–449; Goldie, L. F. E., “Australia’s Continental Shelf,” 3 International and Comparative Law Quarterly 529–575 (October, 1954)Google Scholar; O’Connell, D. P., “Sedentary Fisheries and Australia’s Continental Shelf,” 49 A.J.I.L. 185–209 (1953)Google Scholar; Ohira, Zengo, “The Freedom of the Seas and Japan,” 5 Annals of the Hitotsubashi Academy 86–96 (1954).Google Scholar

24 The New York Times, Nov. 20, 1955, p. 14.

25 Phleger, loc. cit. note 14 above, p. 939.

26 Kwang Lim Koh stands for extension of territorial waters superjacent the continental shelf and wants to include fisheries in general; on the other hand, he proposes the criterion of technical exploitability ( “The Continental Shelf and the ILC,” in 35 Boston Univ. L. Rev. 522–540 (1955)Google Scholar).

27 Phleger, loc. cit. 939.

28 On the Argentinian thesis see the writing of an Argentinian author, Flouret, Teresa H. I., La doctrina de la plataforma submarina (Madrid, 1952).Google Scholar

29 Article 209.

30 Primera Confereneia de la Explotación y Conservatión de las Riquezas Marítimas del Pacéfico Sur. See Yepes, J. M., “El problema del mar territorial o jurisdictional y de la plataforma submarina ante el nuevo derecho international,” Revista Universitas, No. 8, at pp. 45–69 Google Scholar (Bogotá, Colombia, 1955); José W. Villacres Moscoso, La Polítiea Económiea International de los Estados Hèspanoamericanos 237–253 (Guayaquil, 1955). See also The defense of the two-hundred mile limit of territorial waters by Ph. A. Garaioca, former Foreign Minister of Ecuador, in 10 Miami Law Quarterly 490–498 (Summer, 1956), and the defense of the legally correct standpoint of the United States by S. A. Bayitch (ibid. 499–506).

31 “Hasta una distancia mínima de doscientas millas marinas desde las referidas costas.”

32 See Phleger, loc. cit. 937; Yepes, op. cit. 50–51.

33 68 Stat. 883.

34 Phleger, loc. cit. 937; Yepes, op cit. 50; Scelle, op. cit. 45–51.

35 See Revista Peruana de Derecho International 263 (1954). English text in 49 A.J.I.L. 575–577 (1955). See also Sayán, Enrique García, Notas sobre la soberanía maritima del Perú: Defensa de las 200 millas de mar peruano ante las recientes transgresiones (Lima, 1955, pp. 62).Google Scholar

36 “Santiago Negotiations on Fishery Conservation Problems among Chile, Ecuador, Peru, and the United States,” 33 Dept. of State Bulletin 1025–1030 (December 19, 1955).

37 Rome, April 18–May 10, 1955.

38 “Character and Scope of the Rights Declared a ad Practiced over the Continental Sea and Shelf,” 47 A.J.I.L. 120–123 (1953).Google Scholar

39 Op. cit. note 35 above.

40 Loc. cit. note 30 above.

41 43 Stat. 1761.

42 “The International Law Commission’s 1954 Report on the Regime of the Territorial Sea,” 49 A.J.I.L. 221–229 (1955).Google Scholar

43 322 U. S. 19, 804 (1947).

44 Pub. Law 31, 83ra Cong., 1st Sess. (H. Bes. 4198); 67 Stat. 29.

45 U.N. Doc. A/CN.4/90, March 29, 1955, pp. 33–35.

46 See Sir Gerald Fitzmaurice in 31 British Tear Book of International Law 371–429, esp. at 375–376, 383–386 (1954).

47 Loc. cit note 42 above.

48 [1951] I.C.J. Reports 116.

49 U.N. General Assembly, 8th Sess., Official Records, Supp. No. 9 (A/2458).

50 See Josef L. Kunz in 42 A.J.I.L. 111–120 (1948).

51 “La derogación màs rotunda.”

52 Equally untenable is the invocation of the International Law Commission draft articles as norms of international law by the Australian Proclamation of 1953.

53 See Oda, Shigeru, “The Territorial Sea and Natural Resources,” 4 International and Comparative Law Quarterly 415–425 (July, 1955).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

54 See Mouton, op. cit, 46–182; Oppenheim-Lauterpacht, op. cit. note 2 above, pp. 617–625.

55 34 Dept. of State Bulletin 296–299 (Feb. 20, 1956).

56 See New York Times, March 20, 1956, p. 5, and March 29, 1956, p. 9. In the meantime the Acta Final: Conferencia Especializada Interamericana sobre préservación de los recursos naturales: plataforma submarina y aguas del mar (Pan American Union, Doc. 101, March 28, 1956) and the U. S. Report (in 34 Dept. of State Bulletin 894–897 (May 28, 1956)) have been published. The study of these documents confirms the statement given in the text. The Resolution of Ciudad Trujillo is mainly an agreement to disagree. In a final statement the U. S. Delegation made three points: (1) The U. S. Government does not recognize a right in the coastal state, as claimed by certain delegations, to exclusive control over the resources of the high seas; (2) The U. S. Government does not recognize that a state has competence to determine the breadth of its territorial sea apart from international law; (3) The U. S. Delegation calls attention to the fact that the Resolution of Ciudad Trujillo constitutes the latest and most authoritative expression of the O.A.S. on the subjects discussed therein.

57 “Qué dificil es, sefiores, ser comprendidos a los pequeños Estados que carecen de artrfieios del capital-dinero! Quanto más dificil les es y les será ser respetados en sus dereehos y obtener nn mayor bienestar para sus paupérrimos pueblos!”

58 Oppenheim-Lauterpacht, op. cit. note 2 above, p. 632.

59 See I. C. MacGibbon in 31 British Year Book of International Law 143–186 (1954).

60 On protest, see I. C. MaeGibbon in 30 ibid. 293–319 (1953).

61 In 19 Modern Law Beview 1–13 (1956).

62 Loc. cit. note 13 above, pp. 82, 83.