 |
 |
You will have noted that the expression used to describe the rights of the coastal state in Art. 77(1) of the LOSC is ‘sovereign rights’, in contradistinction to Art. 2(1), which says that the coastal state has ‘sovereignty’ over its internal waters, territorial sea and, in the case of archipelagic states, archipelagic waters. The distinction is deliberate, and dates back to the drafting of the predecessor Geneva Convention on the Continental Shelf 1958. The term ‘sovereign rights’ was deliberately chosen to indicate that, whilst the coastal state does indeed have something tantamount to sovereignty in the form of exclusive rights over the exploration of the seabed and subsoil and the exploitation of its resources (both living and non-living), it does not have (in this capacity) any rights over activities in the superjacent waters or the airspace above (Art. 78). Indeed, even where the seabed itself is concerned, the coastal state does not have rights to impede the laying and maintenance of submarine cables and pipelines, save for a right to take reasonable measures for the protection of its exploration and exploitation rights under Art. 77: see Art. 79. When it comes to legislation & treaties referring to a state’s ‘territory’, it is therefore desirable to indicate whether the term includes such things as the cont. shelf and EEZ. So far as litigation is concerned (national, regional and wider), if there is no pertinent definition it seems to depend very much on the context whether the CS is regarded as ‘territory’ or not. I hope this helps. Prof. Maurice Mendelson, Q.C. Blackstone Chambers Barristers Blackstone House Temple London EC4Y 9BW England. Tel. +44 20 7583 1770; fax +4420 7822 7350; email [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]> This e-mail and any files transmitted with it may be confidential and legally privileged. This e-mail is intended to be read only by the addressee. If you are not the intended recipient, you are notified that any review, dissemination or copying of this e-mail is prohibited and that privilege has not been waived. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender by replying by email or by telephone and then delete the e-mail. From: International boundaries discussion list [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Evan Centanni (PolGeoNow) Sent: 21 May 2013 13:17 To: [log in to unmask] Subject: [INT-BOUNDARIES] Sovereignty and the continental shelf Dear Colleagues, As you probably know, the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) provides that states may exercise control over the seabed extending out from their coasts, beyond the 12 nautical mile limit of the territorial sea and, given the right conditions, beyond the limit of their 200 nautical mile exclusive economic zones (EEZs) as well. However, I have a question regarding the nature of the regime of the continental shelf in terms of sovereignty. After reading over the text of the UNCLOS, I still do not understand: Is the continental shelf is to be considered a regime of special limited sovereignty, like the EEZ, or is it to be considered actual sovereign territory of the state as are the territorial waters? I am quite sure that there are others on this list who know the UNCLOS and international maritime law much better than I do - so who can tell me the answer to this question? Or if the question is not settled, is there ongoing discussion on the matter? Thank you very much, Evan Centanni Political Geography Now www.polgeonow.com<http://www.polgeonow.com> Twitter: @polgeonow<https://twitter.com/PolGeoNow> This email has been scanned by Blackstone's Hosted Email Security. ________________________________ This email has been scanned by Blackstone's Hosted Email Security.