SECOND SESSION SECOND COMMITTEE PROVISIONAL SUMMARY RECORD OF THE EIGHTEENTH MEETING

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP82S00697R000300040017-5
• Release Decision: RIFPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 22
• Document Creation Date: December 12, 2016
• Document Release Date: March 19, 2002
• Sequence Number: 17
• Publication Date: July 31, 1974
• Content Type: SUMMARY

Approved For Release 2002/04/01 : CIA-RDP82S00697R000300040017-5
UNITED NATIONS
PROVISIONAL
A/CONF.62/C.2/SR.18
31 July 1974
Second Session
SECOND COMMITTEE
PROVISIONAL SUMMARY RECORD OF THE EIGHTEENTH MEETING
Held at the Parque Central, Caracas,
on Monday, 29 July 1971+, at 3.25 P?m?
Chairman: Mr. AGUILAR Venezuela
Rapporteur: Mr. NANDAN Fiji
CONTENTS
Consideration of subjects and issues and related items:
Continental shelf (continued)
Corrections to this record should be submitted in one of the four working languages
(English, French, Russian or Spanish), preferably in the same language as the text to
which they refer. Corrections should be sent in guadruplicate within five working days
to the Chief, Documents Control, Room 9, Nivel Lecuna, Edificio Anauco, and also
incorporated in one copy of the record.
AS THIS RECORD WAS DISTRIBUTED ON 31 JULY 1974, THE TIME-LIMIT FOR CORRECTIONS WILL
BE 7 AUGUST 1974.
The co-operation of participants in strictly observing this time-limit would be
greatly appreciated.
C-5297
Approved For Release 2002/04/01 : CIA-RDP82S00697R00030004001.7-5
 Approved For Release 2002/04/01 : CIA-RDP82SO0697R000300040017-5
A/CONF.62/C.2/SR.18
English
CONSIDERATION OF SUBJECTS AND ISMT7S A 1' RELATED MUM: CONTINENTAL SHELF (A/9021)
(cont inuec; )
The CIIAIPt!A`! Eaid that as document A/CONF.62/L.4 had been submitted to the
plenary, it was automatically referred to the Committee for consideration and delegations
could refer to it in their statements.
i?ir. ANDERSEN (Iceland), speaking on a point of order, said that as one of the
:sponsors of document A/COiTF.62/L.4, lie had agreed not to address the plenary on the
express understanding that he would be permitted to make a short statement at the present
meeting.
ivir. UPADIIYAYA (Nepal), intervening on a point of order, considered that
delegations already included in the list of speakers should make their statements first
and other delegations could then have the floor.
The CHAIRMAN appealed to the representative of Iceland to await his turn on
the list of speakers in order to avoid a lengthy procedural discussion.
Mr. ANDERSEN (Iceland) agreed to comply with the Chairman's request in order
to facilitate the work of the Committee. `
Mr. GALINDO POHL (In. Salvador) considered that the two crucial issues before
the Conference were the status of the continental shelf beyond the 200-mile limit and
the rules for the delimitatior of the national shelf.
Some States were of the opinion that consideration of the problems relating to the
continental shelf could be based on the 1958 Geneva Convention on the Continental Shelf,
to which they were parties, while other States not parties to that Convention felt that
the discussion should proceed on the basis of customary international law, jurisprudence
and other internationally accepted rules.
The customary law which had developed over the past 30 years was largely in
conformity with the rules in the 1958 Convention, but if those rules were to be regarded
customary law, binding on all States, merely because of the passage of time, the
,~rfect would be to elevate a few States, usually highly developed States, to the status
international lawmakers. Consequently, the 1958 Convention should merely be regarded
a useful instrument of comparison in the present discussion.
In his delegation's view, the definition of the continental shelf in the 1958 Geneva
Convention, to which his country was not a party, was imprecise and unclear. It was open
tai different interpretations, failedOtoOestablisheither00a9geogrppphicg~aal or a
 Approved For Release 2002/04/01 : CIA-RDP82SO0697R00030
/C.2/0, 3.8
( r. G..tl.,.udci rokil, it Salvador)
`which might have given a different meaning to the criterion of exploitability so that it
could not be titerpreted., as it hal he?n, to neanthat the oceans of the world could
become national lakes divided by the coastal States among themselves. It was therefore
necessary to find other sources of international l.aw to supplement that Convention. The
International Court of Justice had mae..e a valuable contribution regarding the basis of
the righ c of the coastal State over the adjacent cot.tinentcJ. she:.f in stating that the
continental shelf was a natur .l prolongation of the land territory and constituted the
submerged part of the latter and as such. be tinged ipso.facto and ab init o to the coastal
State.
The geog.'aphical criterion was not appropriate for identifying the submerged part of
the territory of a cocctal State r continental shelf because there were too many
exceptions. " .e geomorphological criter.oat was more reliable since it was based on the
type of rocks which constituted the fiholf. The limit of the continental shelf over which
the "coastal State exerted. rights shoiLld therefore be set at the outer edge of the
continental rise where continental. rocks were dull found. When the continental shelf so
defined ended within the 200-mi.le zone, the rights of the coastal State would extend to
the superjacent sea--bed.; viien i.t ext-n,:iad beyond the 200-mile zone, the coastal State
would retain its rights wiles it freely decided to waive tLem, There was no reason why
that natural pr3longat1.cn of its tern?itory should end o t my fixed' distance regardless of
the nature of the sea-bud. In ,he area bet ww*e ,n the end of its 200-mile zone and the
outer edge of the cant?.nental rise, th^ coastal State should have rights of the same
nature as in the economic zone and when the regimes wore divided by horizontal layers of
land and water, the same rights -,s in the - sea-bed ci' the :coriomie zone.
The thoory of the coastal States jurisdiction over its continental shelf had been
generally accepted for many years before the principle that the sea-bed and the subsoil
thereof beyond the knits of notional juri 'diction were gait of the common heritage of
mankind had become part of international lcgal and political thinking. Indeed, if there
had been any encroachment on that principle, it had been the effect of the 1958
Convention on the Continental Shelf. It would be helpful to the Conference to accept the
facts about the continental shelf and to recognize the coastal State's rights thereto.
irrespective of the 200-mile distance criterion.
As the entire continental shelf of El Salvador lay within the 200-mile limit,, his
country was not merely protecting its self-interest. It considered that the Conference
should accept the political .end legal realities of the continental shelf in order to
Approved For Release 2002/04/01 : CIA-RDP82SO0697R000300040017-5
reconcile conflicting interest. I. . .
 A/CONF.62/C.2/SRigroved For Release 2002/04/01 : CIA-RDP82SO0697R000300040017-5
English
Page 4
~Mr. Ga ndo Pohi, El : alvador)
~.)Ttik,rt-:nce ;hould also consider ruler for th delimitation of -the national
v id tit of the ~Ti"~~ . n i :ia txl Co .:.P:; if on the hor'tii Sea
Continental Shelf Cases had been exploited excessively. A distinction should be drawn
be Lw een that which constituted a dictum of general application and
that which applied solely to the particular circumstancescf the case sub judice. His
delegation favoured provisions similar to those contained in article 6 of the 1958
tieoeva i,onvention on the Continental Shelf on the understanding that the principle of
equidistance, with exceptions in special circumstances, would not merely serve as a
method of deliid tation but would become a rule of delimitation.
ITS conclusion, he stated that a logical and realistic solution of the two crucial
issues he had discussed would open the way to agreement on other matters.
KELLY DE GUIBOURG (Argentina) shared the view expressed by various
delegations that the success of the Conference would depend to a large extent on the
solution of three major issues: the territorial sea, the 200-mile zone, and the
1?nntinental shelf. Various proposals on those items were before the Conference,
including the draft article submitted by her delegation to the spring session of the
:'ea-Bed Committee (A/AC.l33/SC.II/L. 37) .
Argentina had always maintained that the three questions were interdependent.
,ile confintins' its remarks at the present time to the continental shelf, her delegation
i,eserved tiie ri-ht to intervene on other issues, including document A/CONF.62/L.1+, which
~..ould form part of the political agreement to be reached by the Conference.
International law recognized that the sovereignty of coastal States extended beyond
the territorial sea to the continental shelf, and proposals should be drafted on the
basis of that concept. She defined the continental shelf as a submarine zone adjacent
to the territorial sea which constituted a natural prolongation of the territory of a
coastal State, a broader concept than the geomorphological or bathymetrical concept of
the continental shelf. The seccad element of the definition was that the sovereignty
of tiie coastal State extended as far as it was possible to exploit the resources of the
sea-bed and ocean floor and the subsoil thereof, the so-called exploitability criterion.
Finally., the t-.~rm implied that the rights of the coastal State over the continental shelf
were exclusive" and did not depend on occupation effective or notional or on any
r[eclaratior.. In that connexion. she reiterated the views expressed by the head of her
Approved For Release 2002/04/01 : CIA-RDP82SO0697R000300040017-5 /. ?.
 Approved For Release 2002/04/01 CIA-RDP82SO0697R000300040017-5
A/ C0 7 E :/ .?/SR_18
Lr_
Page 5
delegation in the plenary, and noted that Argentina had expressed its desire to
incorporate the area of its continental shelf in legislation enacted even before the
Truman Declaration.
The International Court of Justice in its Judgement on the North Sea Continental
Shelf,Cases had ruled that a distinction should be made in the Geneva Convention between
the rules of customary international law and those which resulted from the effects of
that Convention.
Argentina was not a party to any of the four Geneva Conventions nor was it a
litigant in the ICJ Cases. Nevertheless, those instruments proved the prior existence
of customary rules which constituted the legal basis for her.country's..position.
It was necessary to formulate rules which would. clearly, establish the extent of
the rights of a coastal State over its shelf. It was the view of. her delegation that
such rights were not limited to the exploration and exploitation of natural resources,
but extended to other aspects such as scientific research and the control of pollution
which might result from activities carried out.therein. With regard to the definition
of the outer limit of the continental shelf, the concept. of; the natural. prolongation of
the territory of the coastal State should allow for the. extension of the sovereignty of
such.States at least as far as the lower outer edge of the continental margin adjoining
the abyssal plains. The representative of Portugal had stated that the concept of the
continental margin was difficult to define and had therefore proposed that it be
replaced by the 4,000-metre bathymetric concept. She.endor.sed the view expressed by the
representative of.Australia that the continental margin was easily determinable.
Furthermore, Argentina had already defined the outer edge of the continental margin
relating to its continental shelf and its location had been drawn in the relevant charts.
Her delegation maintained that that criterion for the establishment of the outer
edge of the continental shelf was the only one which was in harmony with the concept of
the natural prolongation of the territory of the coastal State. The bathymetric
criterion would not cover the entire submerged territory.
The criterion of exploitability should be replaced by a more precisely defined
limit. However, in view of the major interests involved, the Conference should include
the criterion of exploitability in the concept of a 200-mile limit. Since the entire
sea-bed and subsoil were now exploitable, it was necessary to define a clear boundary
Approved For Release 2002/04/01 : CIA-RDP82SO0697R000300040017-5
 Approved For Release 2002/04/01 : CIA-RDP82S00697R000300040017-5-
A/CONE 62/C.2/SR.18
i,1pE- !J
(Mrs. Kelly de Guibourg, Argentina)
which would separate the territorial domain of the coastal State from the international
sea-bed zone. :fowever in the view of her delegation, use of a c'_istance criterion to
make the concept of exploitability more specific could not and should not replace the
geological definition deriving from the concept of the natural prolongation of territory,
which was the basic concept of the continental shelf. The exploitability and geological
criteria were complementary and both had the same legal validity. Argentina did not
agree with those who advocated the establishment of a distance criterion alone for fixing
the outer limit of the continental shelf. The rules which the Conference would
establish should cover cases where the continental shelf was either greater of less than
200 miles, as had been stated by the representatives of Peru, Portugal, Bangladesh,
Honduras, Nicaragua, Finlaa.d, Australia, El Salvador, Spain and others. Any future
convention must be based cn current customary international rules and respect for the
acquired rights of States. Her delegation could not accept the contention that the
continental shelf did not belong exclusively to the coastal States but to the continent.
In that connexion, she referred to the International Court of Justice pronouncement that
land-locked countries could be set aside in the consideration of the effects of the
Geneva Convention on the Continental Shelf and that "what confers the ipso ,lure title
which international law attributes to the coastal State in respect of its continental
shelf is the fact that the submarine areas concerned may be deemed to be actually part
of the territory over which the coastal State already has dominion, in the sense that
although covered with water, they are a prolongation or continuation-of that territory,
an extension of it under the sea'`. The possibility of continentalizing any part of the
territory of a State on the basis that some countries could make good use of the natural
resources therein was unacceptable. Other solutions should be sought to correct
international injustic .
The territorial integrity of States, which was one of the basic principles of
hiternational law, could not be altered with impunity. Her delegation was not prepared
to negotiate on its territorial integrity, and its continental shelf was part of its
territory. Because of its relevance to the complex question under discussion, she
wished to state that the Malvinas Islands which were still under foreign domination,
were located on the Argentinian continental shelf. That was one of the most important
Approved For Release 2002/04/01 : CIA-RDP82SO0697R000300040017-5
 Approved For Release 2002/04/01 : CIA-RDP82SO0697ROO0300040017-5
A/CONF.62/C.2/SR.18
English
Page 7
,riry, i~elly ue Guibourg, Argentina)
foundations for her country's continually stated claim for the restitution of those
Islands which I..egall.y, historically and geographically were part of its territory.
The declarations of-Montevideo, Lima and Santo Domingo and the Inter-American
Juridical Committee as T:o'll as he Political Declaration of the Fourth Summit Conference
of Non-alined Cotuitries had clearly referred to a regime for the continental shelf
beyond the 200?-mile lira:_i.t, as had various proposals to the Sea-Bed Committee and the
present Conference. Argentina, e:;pressed its solidarity with the other developing
countries. It would fight alongside the countries of the third world for the
establishment of a more equitable and more balanced international law of the sea.
However, it could not accept the slightest questioning of its title `to its entire
continental shelf.
Mr. CHAO (Singap re) said that the 1958 Geneva Convention on the:, continental.
shelf was unjust in that i+,.sought to confer upon,a small minority.of priviliged coastal
States which accidentally bordered broad continental shelves the sovereign right to
exploit the natural resources thereof. It had been argued that the right of coastal
States in respect of the continental shelf up to the edge of. the continental margin was
an acquired right wider the Convention wh.4_ch the Conference should not di,sburb. That
argument was open to question for, 'several reasons......,] irstly', the Convention referred
to "continental shelfi? a;ad not to "continental .91ope"., ."continental rise" or
"cont .nental margin" Seco,.1E,_y, the argument .ignored the fundamental. limitation of
adjacency which was laid down in article 1 of the..Qonventi:gn; he,. observed in. that
connexion that according to the judgement of the international Court of Justice in the
North Sea Case the continental shelf hundreds of, miles off the coast could not
conceivably.be regarded as adjacent to the. coast. Thirdly, if it was asserted that
the continental margin was the natural prolongation-of the continental land mass - a
view which appeared. to be suppol tea by the International. Court of Justice it followed
just the coastal States, should be entitled
that all States on the continent, and not
to the natural resources of the entire continental margin.;;- Fourthly, at the time of
the adoption of the 1.958 Convention it lad not yet been contemplated that it would be
possible to exploit sea-bed resource, beyond the 200-metre isobath.
In any case, the present Conference had been convened not to protect acquired
rights but to Aurow , eo Rentire eleaSeJ 2000 010' :5-P 1 ~cVPO4A 1 justice
 Approved For Release 2002/04/01 : CIA-RDP82SO0697R000300040017-5
A/CONF.62/C.2/SR.18
English
page 8
(Mr. Chao, Singapore)
wherever required. The mcst important task before the Conference was to determine how
the resources of the sea as a whole could be equitably shared among all nations and
peoples and that task could not be accomplished unless the question was viewed in its
totality. The history of the development of the concept of the continental shelf showed
that it had been evolved to serve the interests of a few advanced developed countries.
The Conference should lave the courage to rectify such injustices.
Every State, whether coastal or land-locked, should be entitled to a fair share of
the resources of the sea in accordance with the principle of the common heritage of
mankind. If that principle was to have any meaning, as great an area as possible of the
continental margin and the sea-bed should be reserved for the international r6gime.
Even the establishment of the economic zone would be a crippling blow to the international
regime, as could be seen from the report of the Secretary-General of the United Nations
entitled "Economic significance, in terms of sea-bed resources, of the various limits
proposed for national jurisdiction" contained in document A/AC.138/87. If the coastal
States were granted the right to the continental margin beyond the economic zone, leaving
the international regime with merely the abyssal plains and other parts of the deep
ocean basins, the concept of the common heritage of mankind would be as good as buried.
ecording to the Secretary-General's report, if the Conference adopted a combination of
both the 200-mile limit and the 3,000-metre isobath, it was highly doubtful that there
would be any hydrocarbons left as part of the common heritage of mankind. As to the
question of exploiting manganese nodules on the deep sea-bed, it was generally recognized
that their economic exploit'bility was still doubtful - as could be seen from table 3 of
that report. Furthermore, the representative of UNCT'AD, in his statement in the sixth
meeting of the First Committee, a summary, of which was reproduced in document
A/CONNF.62/C.1/L.2., had expressed the view that the future international sea-bed authority
could not earn enough revenue to compensate land-based producers of developing countries
for the losses they would sustain when sea-bed mining was undertaken, and that the only
way it could expect to produce a surplus for distribution to developing countries was by
a preventive approach that would fix prices for the minerals involved by agreement
between producers and consumers. Thus, there was considerable uncertainty as to the
Approved For Release 2002/04/01 : CIA-RDP82SO0697R000300040017-5
 Approved For Release 2002/04/01 : CIA-RDP82S00697R00030004R?813* 62/C.2/'SR.l8
NnEl'ish
Page 9
(Mr. Chao, Sing apre)
commercial exploitation of the manganese nodules. In fact, because of the possible
economic effect that deep-sea mining could have on land-based producers, it might not
be undertaken for a longtime.
Accordingly, to-allow coas:tal,Statea further rights beyond the economic zone was
to negate the principle of the common heritage of mankind; it would perpetuate injustice
and would largely benefit developed countries. ..:The.C6nference must ensure that the
zone under the jurisdiction of the proposed international sea-bed authority would be
economically viable. Consequently, in order to give real effect to the principle of
the common heritage of mankind, the Conference should abandon the independent concept
of the continental shel:T. The interests of mankind as a whole would not be served by
any extension of coastal State jurisdiction.beyond the proposed economic zone.
Mr. OCHAN (Uganda) emphasized that the world situation had changed considerabl;
since 1958. With reference to the specific case of the continental shelf, he said. that
Uganda was not a party to the 1958 Geneva Convention and, like a majority of States
participatD.ng in the Conference, did not agree with its provisions, which took no
account of the interests of land-locked and geographically disadvantaged States.
There were additional convincing reasons why the concept of the continental shelf
should be revised. Under the more practical concept of a 200-mile economic 'zone - which
would replace that of the continental shelf - States with .a continental shelf of less
than 200 miles would enjoy an extension of their jurisdiction. In the case-of the
States whose continental shelf extended beyond 200 miles, a system of equitable
compensation should be devised.' Furthermore, the exploitability criterion embodied in
the 1958 Geneva Convention benefited only States with a high level of technological
advancement.
Mr. UPADHYAYA (Nepal) said that the 1958 Geneva Convention on the Continental
Shelf was a striking example'ofthe furtherance of the interests of a few States at the
expense of the majority, particularly developing land-locked States.
His delegation took the concept of the continental shelf to mean the natural
prolongation under water of the land mass of a ,continent and not merely that of a coasts
State. A concept which placed the shelf under the sole jurisdiction of a coastal State
might become the source of conflict and, in addition, would render meaningless the cones
of the common heritage of mankind.
Approved For Release 2002/04/01 : CIA-RDP82SO0697R000300040017-5 / .. ,
 A/CONF.62/CA/-Sx 3 For Release 2002/04/01 : CIA-RDP82SO0697R000300040017-5
En ;lisp
Pane 10
(Mr. Upadhyaya, Nepal)
Cert.uin de1o,ations had claimed that the regime of the continental shelf formed
part of customary international law, and that rights had already been acquired by them
under the existinc Convention. That theory had serious drawbacks. States not parties
to the 1958 Convention were not bound by its provisions. On the other hand, coastal
States parties to the Convention had claimed sovereign rights over the continental
shelf unilaterally. Such unilateral acts, no matter how many of them there might be,
could not create customary law, and the absence of protest by the States not parties to
the Convention was no 'roof of acceptance. Moreover, in the case of coastal States
which lacked the technological know-how to exploit the natural resources of the
continental shelf, the application of the concept of acquired rights was illogical.
The doctrine of the continental shelf constituted a challenge to the principle of
the high seas, which prohibited individual States from claiming any part thereof,
including the sea-bed and its subsoil.
In the light of those serious drawbacks, the concept of the continental shelf
could either be abandoned altogether in favour of a new concept, such as that of the
economic zone, or, if retained at all, it must signify that the continental shelf lay
within the common jurisdiction of all the States of the continent in question. In his
delegation's view, tne concept should be completely revised. Since one delegation had
claimed that the concept had had the support of the Group of 77 at its Conference at
Nairobi, his delegation wished to point out that what that Conference had decided was
that the matter deserved further consideration; any proposal on the subject submitted
to that Conference accordingly remained an internal document of the Group of 77 and
could not be considered to reflect the position of the participants.
i'-tr. CARPIO CASTILLO (Venezuela) said that his delegation's views regarding
the continental shelf were set forth in document A/AC.138/SC.II/L.21
(A/9021, vol. III, pp.19--21), a text of which his delegation had been a sponsor.
As to the working paper in document A/OONF.62/L.4, his delegation agreed with the
basic idea set forth in that text to the effect that the establishment of an exclusive
economic zone did not preclude the concept of a continental shelf, which was embodied
in conventional and customary international law. In his delegation's view, the
retention of the concept of the continental shelf - which Venezuela and the United
i:i.u ;d.ox d pioneered in t eir joint nevotiations cone inr:. the Gulf of Paris:,, - vas a
ac:nt~1 elennent of the :,enersl political a, rewent sought at the Conference.
Approved For Release 2002/04/01 : CIA-RDP82SO0697R000300040017-5 / . .
 Approved For Release 2002/04/01 : CIA-RDP82S00697R00030?j.-2/C.2/SR.18
English
Page il
(Mr. Caro Castillo, Venezuela)
As a natural prolongation of the continental and island territory of the coastal
State, the continental shelf was a geographical and geological reality that thoixl.d'ber`
reflected in the new definition of the concept. As stated in article 13 of document
A/AC,138/SC.II/L.21, the continental shelf should extend to the outer limits of,the'
continental rise.. His. delegation consequently considered. that article 19, paragraph 2,
in document. A/CONF.62/L.4 did not truly.reflect the conceptof the continental. shelf.
It would be sufficient to state that the continental shelf was the netural prolongation
of the continental and island territory of the coastal State,.and to establish clearly
that.that prolongation might extend, in some cases,-beyond 200 miles. Such a'definition
would.avoid any confusion between the.oontinental shelf, over which the State had
sovereign rights under existing international..lat/, and the sea-bed, subsoil aril
superjacent waters covered by the. new concept of an exclusive economic,zone in which the
coastal.State would exercise sovereignty only..over;resources. In other words;. the. two
areas would be subject.to separate legal r6gimes.?:.
. His delegation was tow convinced that, in order to avoid any misinterpretation,
it would be better to return to the original concept of the continental shelf and-apply.
a single legal r.6gime covering both.thelpart of it which lay within the exclusive
economic zone and the part beyond that zone. His.-delegation had'advanced that idea
in the Sea-Bed Committee and wished now to reiterate its preference for such a formula.
That would entail a revision of the proposal.in document?A/AC.138/SC.II/L.21, by the
simple deletion of article 15; to that end, his delegation would discuss the matter
with the other. sponsors.
Mr. THEODOROPOULOS (Greece), introducing the draft articles on the continental
shelf submitted by his delegation in document A/CONF.62%C.2/L.25, suggested that they
should be read in conjunction with document A/CONF.62/C.2/L.22, which contained draft
articles, also submitted by his delegation, on certain other aspects of the law of the
In document A/CONF.62/C.2/L.25 his delegation was. seeking to present in a systematic
way, without affecting their substance, proposals which were already before the Committee.
His delegation was somewhat sceptical with regard to the'argument`that the new
concept of the economic zone superseded 'that of the continental,shelf'and that, therefore,
Approved For Release 2002/04/01 : CIA-RDP82SO0697R000300040017-5
 Approved For Release 2002/04/01 : CIA-RDP82S00697R000300040017-5
A/CONF.62/C.2/SR.l8
English
Page 12
(Mr. Theodoropoulos, Greece)
a new convention need not deal specifically with the latter. It certainly had no
misgivings or reservations as to the concept of the economic zone; however, that was a
new and still untried idea, while the concept ox the continental shelf was recognized and
accepted in international legal instruments and practice. Moreover, the juridical
content of that concept was already defined in a generally accepted form and consisted
in the exercise of sovereign rights of the coastal State for the purpose of exploring
and exploiting the natural resources of the shelf, Since, therefore, the two concepts
were not coextensive, either in the juridical or the geographical sense, his delegation
wished to preserve the concept of the continental shelf in a manner which, as could be
seen from article 4 of document A/CONF.62/C.2/L.25, would be without prejudice to any
decision which the Conference might take with regard to the economic zone.
Since it was important to avoid uncertainty in the drafting of the Convention, his
delegation subscribed to the general tendency to abandon the criterion of exploitability
in favour of the more precise and more objective numerical criteria of depth and breadth.
That view was reflected in the formulation of article I of his delegation's proposal.
The actual isobath to be referred to in that article would be a. matter for negotiation
only if and when it appeared generally acceptable to base the definition of the
continental shelf on the proposed combination of criteria.
Article 2, relating to islands, faithfully reflected existing international law.
In article 5, provision was made for preserving the rights already acquired and
exercised by States, in order to avoid disputes arising from the implementation of the
new law.
In article 6, relating to delimitation between States, preference was given to
bilateral agreement and, failing such agreement, recourse would be had to the median line
of equidistance, a principle embodied not only in multilateral international instruments
but also followed very widely in bilateral agreements all over the world. While parties
would be free to seek agreement among themselves through any other peaceful procedure -
and provided any of the parties was not negotiating under duress - the criterion of the
median line of equidistance vould be used as a last resort.
As to those proposals already submitted to the Sea-Bed Committee that were based on
a different approach, his delegation considered that it was far from satisfactory to try
to base agreements between the parties on words such as "equitable principles": that
Approved For Release 2002/04/01 : CIA-RDP82S00697R000300040017-5
/...
 A/CONF.62/C,2/SR.18
Approved For Release 2002/04/01 : CIA-RDP82S00697R006. 00bd 017-5
(MMr. Theodoropoulos, Greece)
was exactly the type of dangerously vague wording which should be avoided in any new
convention. Moreover, such an approach was made even more nebulous by the open-ended
enumeration of so-called "relevant factors", especially when they were spelt out under
the equally vague label of "inter alia", without any mention of the one rule - as the
representative of El. Salvador had pointed out -- most widely used in international
practice, namely that of the median line, In that context, he wished to recall the
statement made by the President of the Conference at the forty-sixth plenary meeting
to the effect that the rational and practical approach wovld be to devise a rule which
would be basic to all situations while allowing for regional arrangements to suit
special situations and circ?amstances. That should be kept in mind as a general guideline
in order to avoid opening the door to conflicting interpretations. He had in mind in
particular such odd ideas as that of islands existing on the continental shelf of
another State, as if they had been placed there aposteriori as an afterthought of the
Creator. If that argument were. pursued, the conclusion would be reached that the islands
themselves might one day be claimed by the continental State as part and parcel of its
own territory. States possessing islands should be warned of the implications of such
an approach.
His delegation did not, claim-origina?.ity with regard to document A/C01 .62/Cn2/L.25,
it had merely sought, as a basis for further deliberation, to reflect the wording of
proposals submitted to the Sea--Bed Committee as well as a number of views expressed in
the Second Committee by other. delegations, particularly that of Japan.
Mr. LUPINACCI (Uruguay) said that the legal. concept of a continental shelf
vas based on a.fact of nature on the basis of which the law recognized certain situations,
relations and interests that should be regulated and. protected.
It was. a real fact of nature that the territory of the State extended geologically
under the sea adjacent to its coast to the point where it met the ocean floor. The..
basic legal consequence of that fact was that the State should extend the, sovereign
?ights that it exercised over its territory to the natural prolongation of the latter,
.ihich had a patent, intrinsic relationship with that territory in accordance with the
,riterion of continuity.
/?
Approved For Release 2002/04/01 : CIA-RDP82SO0697R000300040017-5
 A/CONF. 6 /C. `A^ . ,ed For Release 2002/04/01 : CIA-RDP82SO0697R000300040017-5
Pa,,,e
14
(.x. Lu inacci, Urn,-?uay)
-owever, teat saute fact of nature, a4d the incidence of other factors deriving
fro,,. tie ri,,uts of tuir states of the international coiamtutitf with regard to the
superjaceat trai:er colu:in, required special treatlaenG, naiaely, the application of a
s;,ecial legal r&gi.ae. M us, it was necessary, on-tile one nano, to protect the rights-
of the coastal Sta-ce anc, on tae other, to safeguard tae le;;itimate interests of third
States ~nu tale international ecumunity, on tare basis of a simple, legally precise
and equitable formlulL.
mere was accordingly a need to foraulate a concept of the continental shelf on
tie basis of ,eoloi;ical ans. allied criteria with a view on tae one hand, to remedying
tue political, econonic and social injustices suffered by various States as a result
of Lne .reat variation in tae width of continental shelves and, on the other-hand, to
avoiain , the unnecessary and confusing duplication of legal r63inies and harmonizing the
'arious interests 1t stake.
Uruguay, which had .lot ratified the 195U Geneva Convention on the Continental
:,Itelf because the definition of the continental shell contained therein was too
i,iiprecise, but which had adopted that definition in its domestic le{;islation, was ready
to accept a new definition that would correct tae defects inherent in the definition
used in the Convention aaC_?Soulu be cooapatible with the concept of the international
zone, consiuerect as the cotuon heritage of :- in .d - a concept that enjoyed the
unanlinous 5i,)1_,ort of all :states.
k .Zed ueiinition should, above all, respect the inalienable soverei,,n risuts that
tale coastal State exercises. over the wiiole area of the continental shelf, as the
natural prolo,i.cation of its territory. That was established under international law,
, nd iia& been confiruea b- -ciie Li-cernational Court of Justice in its Judgements on the.
oortii Gea Continental Shelf Cases, ihich h. been mentioned by so many delegations.
.ievertueless, the eologi-cal concept of tae shelf should be modified in two
r-sicts in so far as the applicable legal concept was concerned. Firstly, the shelf
s.ioulc: be considered as be.-inning from tau external li.iit of the sea area over which
tie `state e::ercise4 soverei.,nty. P or bri.,,,,ut.;, that area `.as tale territorial sea, which
souls. extena to a i,8}:imu:.i dietanee of 200 iuiles from the applicable baselines. Up to
t: at lib t , the sfi,;ie le,;ai rL _ ii.ies ax .-)lied to the water column, the sca-L-eu and tuie
subsoil, and also to the corresvondinf, air space, without prejudice to the plurality
Approved For Release 2002/04/01 : CIA-RDP82SO0697R000300040017-5 /.. .
 Approved For Release 2002/04/01 : CIA-RDP82S00697R000300040017-5
ry 2/J1,11 0 101.
ag1ish
Pa,e 15
(. r. .. a 1ilacc 'OrB6ge r
of r6giriies in the territorial sea, which were intenr.ec, to meet other purposes. In
consequence, up to that limit it was neither meaningful nor legally appropriate to
sel)arate the sec,,-bed wiiu the subsoil from the water column, since they all constituted
part of the territorial se,_ -
Secondly, as the prolongation of the submer ed territory of the coastal State, the
continental shelf consisted of the continental crust lying; below sea level, in other
worua, the area up to the continental marlin, including the continental slope and the
continental rise. The sovereign rights of the coastal State should accordingly extend
to the external limit of the continental rise, where it bordered the ocean floor. Over
that area, the coastal State possessed the inalienable rights inherent in its sovereiL~mty.
u:evert'zieless, the ler.,al concept of the continental shelf should also incorporate
c: aistcaice criterion in or-der to take account of the situation of coastal States with
little or no shelf, or with a C?eolo ;ically narrow shelf less than 200 miles wide.
Titus, his delegation understood the continental shelf to mean the sea--bed and
subsoil of tine submarine areas adjacent to the territory of tile coastal State, but
b yoinci the external limit of its territorial sea, co lprisin ; the whole prolongation of
the subs ier ed territory of . the State up to tite lower external ed e of the continental,
rise borL.ering on the ocean floor; or, trnen that ere was situated at a distance of less
than 200 guiles from the ap,ilicable baselines used for iaeasurin:n- the breadth of the
territorial sea, then up to that distance, provided the territorial sea was less than
200 miles wi(%.e.
!xcor~.in:.,ly, the coastal State exercised- its sovereignty over the continental shelf
for the purposes of exploring it and exploitin; its natural resources, both renewable
no;i-r iu ev,able, a L6 that did not affect the legal rep ime of the su~perjace.it waters,
or the air space above the-o". in the rules adopter: by the coastal State for the
conservation of the renewable resources of its continental shelf, and to avoid pollution
of the s,ielf itself or of areas beyond it from the continental shelf, account sriould be
ta.en of tree reconr.aenaations of the international technical bodies made up of all States
co::icernect. It was ,.lso for tae coastal State to authorize scienti~ic research orb the
promoting an. facilitating
continental siiel , bearin, in mind the general, interest in
such activities, subject to its right to participate in all phases of the research and to
have access to inter-rret and use the results obtained.
Approved For Release 2002/04/01 : CIA-RDP82S00697R000300040017-5
 Approved For Release 2002/04/01 : CIA-RDP82S00697R000300040017-5
A/coia.62/C.2/sa.10
.gin: ,fish
(i-ir. Lu:)inr.(ci, Uru(,ua%,r)
on ta-- basis of tiie foregoin, it 3houla be possible to draft an equitable formula
tilat would overco~ie t:ie defects of the definition e:_lbodiE?d in the 1958 Geneva
uoavention.
ii . (rakistan) said that developuieuts since the Geneva Convention of
1 5u, and in particular the eneral demand of the develo2in1 States for the extension
vl ti;e territorial sea to 12 Hiles t.ud tae ,atri;Aionial sea to 200 ~,iiles had made some of
t;_e irovisions of that Convention irrelevant. In his delecation's view certain changes
nac_ oeco..ce inevitable, altaourh tuck would depend on the precise nature and scope of
the ri:;iits of the coastal St.tes in the econonac zone.
The basis for the LLeteri.L nation of tue area of the continental shelf - the extent
of exploitability - had been materially altered because of tecnnolot,ical advances.
lioreover, the ce-atn of 200 retres no longer held: good as a criterion.
Seeonely, tie racner artificial classification of living orbanisns into mobile,
sedentary and i:.raiiobile, as contemplated is article 2, para;;rapn 4, of the Geneva
Convention had lost its si,,rificance.
Thirdly , tae li;ai.tetioi. of the powers of the coastal. states rel ardini, the conduct
of scientific researcL had ...lso oeco:se untenable, because it was inconsistent. with the
f~ALendeu scone of national sovereignty and jurisuiction of the coastal states, wnicn
i,ik ? :>e~ :i. i -.Aely s urpor%e _.
tine ler;al status of the superjacent waters as hi3h seas -might also be
affect,~u, Lej;endia . Upon the final sna;?e of the econauc zone.
.is c eiega ion believed. that t:.e proper arproacu woulc be to exa wine tie nature
au .i_i::u.;s of U;je continental shelf together and in relation to the concept of tae
ecoa:o.aic zone.
: o..ie ;iroronents of the economic zone believed teat the coastal States' ri~,ats under
..,c.t concept would include t:io:;e they now enjoyed over tie sea-bed and subsoil by virtue
of c.:io Geneva Convention and t;.at the continental shelf woulu be nier;;ed into tlLe
economic zone. ut,iers -:rao e p.:asizeu tie eo iorpAolo;,ica1 rationale of the continental
eI , p:rtictuaxly :.totes i'1th continental trar;;ins ehtendin; beyond 200 Tulles, favoured
rt tcntlo.. of z:.e couec ~~ of the territorial shelf.
folk- probir:,,, coul._ :,e c;:aznnel fro:i different an;les. One possiuility was that a
~.: le rc?; ]ire of ti-,c t:coucv._c zone saotttd appl,; to the entire ocean space under national
j uei6 -ction Apes ~ or I ~ 01t;~ 1 - ~6 J 5waters.
 A / CONF. 62 / C .. 2 / RR. l8
Approved For Release 2002/04/01 : CIA-RDP82S00697R000$jOQ4QQ17-5
Page 17
(Mr. Cheema, Pakistan).
A second possibility was two different regimes, one applying to the patrimonial
sea and the other ba:ed on the 1958 Geneva Convention for the part of the continental
shelf extending beyond 200 miles.
A third approach could be for different regimes to apply to the superjacent waters
and the sea-bed including the subsoil?
Yet another formula was the one advanced by Argentina, under which the economic
zone or patrimonial sea would consist of the continental shelf up to the outer edge of the
continental rise or up to?a distance of 200 miles wherever the outer edge was less than
that distance from the coast, and the superjacent waters up to a distance of 200 miles
from the baseline used for measuring the territorial sea. The concept of continental
shelf would not completely nisappear but would become an integral part of the economic
His delegation favoured 'tae idea of including the concepts of continental shelf and
exclusive fisheries zone into the wider concept of the
a single regime of the economic zone which covered the
the superjacent waters. Under that regime the coastal
economic zone. It would prefer
sea-bed and the subsoil as well as
State would have sovereign rights
over both the living and non-living resources within the zone not exceeding 200 nautical
miles from the.coast. his delegation did, however, feel that coastal States whose
continental shelves extended beyond 200 miles were justified in insisting that the rights
they already enjoyed should be safeguarded, it would therefore be. prepared to give
sympathetic consideration to other proposals based on geomorphological.considerations
so long as they did not cause prejudice to the rights and jurisdiction of the
continental coast States which the concept of economic. zone or patrimonial sea sought
to establish.
Mr. CHEHAB (Egypt), having briefly recalled the history of the concept of the,
continental shelf, said that since the Truman Declaration of 1945, the shelf had been
considered as a prolongation of the territory of the coastal State, in which no one
could undertake exploitation-of natural resources or claim rights without the express
consent of that State. however, the coastal State could not hinder the laying or
maintenance of underwater cables or pipelines or unjustifiably hamper freedom of
navigation, fishing and scientific research.
The 1958 Geneva Convention had been designed to establish a clear, stable legal
regime. However, it had not settled all the problems of the continental shelf State, and
in some respects it was too vague.
Approved For Release 2002/04/01 : CIA-RDP82SO0697R000300040017-5 /..
 Approved For Release 2002/04/01 : CIA-RDP82S00697R000300040017-5
A/CONF.62/C.2/SR.18
English
Page 18
( 1r. Chehab, Egt )
`i'hc- definition of the continental shelf in article 1 combined the criteria of
depth and exploitability, which were in fact incompatible. Application of the criterion
of exploitability had varied with the capacity of States, and had been a disadvantage
to the developing countries. Clearly the extreme vagueness of the definition might
lead to disputes whenever, with the progress of technology, it became possible to
exploit the continental shelf beyond a depth of 200 metres.
The criterion laid down in the 1,055 Convention for the delimitation of the outer
edge of the continental shelf was., moreover, inadequate. The time had come to
re-examine the legal regime established by the 1958 Convention and to adopt a practical,
rational criterion. The ides, of the exclusive economic zone or patrimonial sea, based
on the criterion of distance, would have the advantage of precision and equity:
everything beyond a given distance would belong to the international community and
would be managed by an international authority on behalf of all nations.
The idea of the exclusive economic zone, which had been set forth in the OAU
Declarations of 1973 and 1974 and endorsed by the Declarations of the League of Arab
States in 1973 and 1971+, would grant coastal States a set of sovereign rights over all
the biological and mineral resources of the zone, over scientific research and over
pollution control. It would thus subsume the idea of the continental shelf, and be
more in keeping with the recent progress of technology.
its delegation was nevertheless aware that there were other aspects to the
problem which must be considered, and it therefore reserved the right to return to the
matter at a later stage.
Ile hoped to be able to comment on concrete proposals submitted to the Committee
at a later stage.
'+r. BALLAH (Trinidad and Tobago) said that his delegation, while fully aware
of the need for new norms to reflect technological advances and the requirements of
international social justice, nevertheless believed that the concept of the continental
shelf was a fundamental principle which must be retained in any new convention. The
criteria for delimiting the outer limits of the shelf should, however, be made more
definite.
Approved For Release 2002/04/01 : CIA-RDP82S00697R000300040017-5 / i . .
 Approved For Release 2002/04/01 : CIA-RDP82S00697R0003OfiM JI7a/C.2/SR.l8
English
Page 19
(Mr. Ballah, Trinidad and Tobago)
No delegation had disputed the fact that. the. continental shelf was the natural
prolongation of the land territory of the coastal State. Some had disputed the
indeterminate nature of the exploitability criterion in the legal definition of the
continental shelf contained in the 1958 Geneva Convention; the inequities and
inconsistencies which might, result from the application of criteria based on depth,
geoinorphology and exploitability; and the assumption that coastal States should exercise
sovereign rights over the resources of the entire natural prolongation of their land
territory, to the exclusion of other States and the international community.
His delegation felt that the exploitability criterion ought to be abandoned. It
had been incorporated into the legal definition of the continental shelf in order to
protect the vested interests of those States which possessed narrow shelves. Abandonment
of that criterion would not adversely affect the interests of those States once the
Conference had adopted the concept of a 200-mile exclusive economic zone. or patrimonial
sea, which would constitute a progressive development of the law and not a codification
of existing law.
With respect to the contention that inequities would arise if the criterion based,
inter alia, on geology and geomorphology were to be applied,. his delegation felt that
nature itself had checks and balances: the absence of a continental shelf in certain
States had redounded to their benefit in that they were endowed with fine natural harbours
and unspoilt beaches, and., in certain cases, with fertile fishing grounds.
Although the argument that coastal States should not benefit exclusively from the
natural resources of the entire natural prolongation of their land territory was a
persuasive one, his delegation felt that the Conference should in no way deprive States
of the sovereign rights which they exercised over their submerged territory. Very few
States had natural prolongations or continental margins which went beyond 200 miles. In
his delegation,?s view, such States were entitled by right to the full extent of their
continental shelves, but they should share with the international community a portion of
the natural. resources of their continental shelves lying beyond 200 miles.
His delegation shared the view of the Philippine representative to the Fourth
Committee of the.1958 Conference on the taw of the Sea that the continental shelf as
defined by the 1958 Convention should be regarded as merely declaratory of the sovereign
rights of the coastal State to explore and exploit the natural resources of its
continental shelf. The existence of such rights was not derived from any specific
Approved For Release 2002/04/01 : CIA-RDP82SO0697R000300040017-5 /...
 Approved For Release 2002/04/01 : CIA-RDP82SO0697R000300040017-5
K%CONF . 62/C. 2/SR.lt3
English
>f3.F.e ?0
(?~r. Ballah, Trinidad- and Tobago)
provision of international law; it was inherent in the sovereignty which the coastal
:>tate exercised over its adjacent land territory.
Trinidad and Tobago, as a small developing island State, exercised sovereign rights
over its contr.-.ital shelf for the purpose of exploring and exploiting its natural
resources for the benefit of its people. That right was inherent in its sovereignty and
needed no promulgation. Trinidad and Tobago had had no cause to rely on the exploitability
criterion. His delegation therefore supported the definition of the continental shelf
in physical terms and commended to the Committee the following definition of the
continental shelf:
"The continental shelf .:'z a coastal State extends beyond its territorial sea
throughout the natural prolongation of its land territory."
Where, however, that natural prolongation did not extend up to 200 miles, the
coastal State was entitled to claim up to that distance in accordance with the concept
of the exclusive economic zone or patrimonial sea.
U KYAW MIN (Burma) said that his delegation saw the continental. shelf regime
as an autonomous regimewithin the broader frame of the future regime of the exclusive
economic zone jr patrimonial sea. The continental shelf and the water space should be
viewed as forming a whole.
His delegation believed that the doctrine of the natural prolongation of the land
territory into and under the sea had now attained the status of a basic_principle of
international mari::im,, law, conferring on coastal States certain legal rights and pavers
which were originFt, natural and exclusive.
On the centril issue of limits, his.. delegation considered it essential that the
paramountcy of the natural prolongation principle should be upheld in formulating the
draft articles on the geogeapnic limits of a coastal State's jurisdiction over the.
sea-bed,.both se~,aards and. vis-a-vis another State. The definition of the continental
heif as embodied in the 1958 Geneva Convention, notwithstanding the exploitability
clause, had,done only partial justice to the natural prolongation principle, which was
expressed in the Convention in terms of the natural continental shelf, namely. the
200-metre isobatb line. But in :cological terms the submerged parts of. continents
ended not at the edge of the natural continental shelf, but at the edge of the
continental margin. The nev definition of the continental shelf to be elaborated by the
Approved For Release 2002/04/01 : CIA-RDP82SO0697R000300040017-5 /?
 Approved For Release 2002/04/01 : CIA-RDP82S00697R000300040017-5
English
Page 21
(U Kyaw Min,
Conference must express "neural prolongations" in terms of the continental margin. His
delegation could not agree to the proposal to establish a uniform distance criterion
for determining the outer limits of the continental shelf, for that would divest many
coastal States of their primordial rights over a portion of the submerged part of their.
continental land mass.
Since the entire seacoast of Burma was washed by the waters of the Bay-of-Bengal,
the principles and modalities of delimiting the continental. shelf betwee...-States were of
particular interest to his delegation. The most glaring omission in article 6 of the
1958 Continental Shelf Convention was the absence of any reference to,the natural
prolongation principle. That should be corrected in the new Convention. Since that
principle was the source of the continental shelf rights of coastal States, it should
also form the basis for the establishment of continental shelf boundaries between States,
wherever applicable. His delegation would return to'that matter when the Committee
discussed item 6 of its agenda.
Turning to the nature,and scope of coastal State jurisdiction over the continental
shelf, he pointed out that existing international law recognized the coastal State as
having exclusive sovereign rights for the purpose of exploring the continental shelf
and exploiting its resources. Its jurisdiction over the resources of the continental
shelf was total.. His delegation could thus see no justification for the proposals that
sought to impose on coastal States an obligation to share with others part of the
revenues derived from the exploration of the mineral resources of the continental shelf.
The practical effect of those proposals would be to establish a regime of mixed
ownership over those resources. Any such system, however, would be a serious
encroachment on the existing rights of coastal States, and would be unacceptable to his
delegation. The proposal to remove the living resources of the sea-bed from the
definition of continental shelf resources was also unacceptable.
The language of article 2, paragraph 1 of the 1958 Convention made it clear that the
jurisdiction of the coastal S?.ate over the continental shelf was not confined to resource
extraction but extended to other specified activities. Article 5, paragraph 8 made it
clear that prior consent of the coastal State was mandatory for any research conducted
on and about the continentalRR shelf. Under that article, the coastal State was entitled
to withhold frompanother atateeeconsent2/to/Oi ndert-alike sc1eo en 0~~ ~ ~` % on Sits
 Approved For Release 2002/04/01 : CIA-RDP82SO0697R000300040017-5
A/CONF. 62/C. 2/SR.18
English
Pa .e ?2
(U Kyaw i4in, Burma)
continental shelf, regardless of the nature of that research. Those were existing rights
under the existing law, and his delegation could only deplore the proposals aimed at
abrogating them, although it fully recognized the vital role and potential benefits of
scientific research. Prior consent mast be obtained for any scientific research for
whatever purpose anywhere on the continental shelf of a coastal State and within its
exclusive economic zone.
The CHAIRMAN urged members of the Committee to confine their remarks to new
proposalsand comments on such proposals, in view of the long list of speakers and the
short time available for the discussion. From now on he would rigorously apply the
15-minute limit on speeches decided by the Committeeat a previous meeting.
The meeting rose at 6.10 p.m.
Approved For Release 2002/04/01 : CIA-RDP82SO0697R000300040017-5