Online ordering is currently unavailable due to technical issues. We apologise for any delays responding to customers while we resolve this. For further updates please visit our website: https://www.cambridge.org/news-and-insights/technical-incident Due to planned maintenance there will be periods of time where the website may be unavailable. We apologise for any inconvenience.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 28 March 2017
The Convention on the Continental Shelf, adopted at Geneva on April 26, 1958, by the United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea, represents the first great effort to determine by an act of international legislation the scope of the continental shelf doctrine in international law. The fact that the Convention was finally approved by a vote of 57 to three, with only eight abstentions, is evidence both that a need for rules on the subject was generally felt and that the rules embodied in the Convention were considered on the whole acceptable.
1 The final text of the Convention appears in U.N. Doc. A/Conf.13/L.58 (the Final Act of the Conference), and also separately in Doc. A/Conf.13/L.55, printed below, p. 858. It consists of versions in English, French, Russian, Chinese, and Spanish, each version being declared equally authentic. See article by Marjorie M. Whiteman, above, p. 629, for full documentation on the Conference discussion of the subject.
2 The text of Arts. 67-73, together with a commentary, is printed in the Commission's Report of its 8th Session, 1956 (U.N. Doc. A/3159), pp. 41-45; 51 A.J.I.L. 242-253 (1957).
3 The cautionary remark of Professor Scelle—always a critic of the continental shelf doctrine—at the 357th meeting of the International Law Commission (May 31, 1956) may be recalled in this connection: “ I t was not surprising that difficulty was experienced in evolving a precise definition of a term which was essentially indefinable. Adoption of the concept whereby the continental shelf extended as far as exploitation of the natural resources of the seabed was possible would tend to abolish the domain of the high seas.” I.L.C. Yearbook, 1956, Vol. I, p. 135.
4 I.L.C. Report, 5th Sess., 1953 (U.N. Doe. A/1316), p. 14; 48 A.J.I.L. Supp. 32 (1954).
5 The vote was six in favor, four against, three abstentions. U.N. Doc. A/CN.4/ SE.205.
6 At the Conference the original proposal for Art. 2(4) expressly excluded “Crustacea and swimming species.” Although approved in committee, this clause was stricken out in plenary session. The result is to make more doubtful than ever the precise scope of the paragraph.
7 The text is in U. N. Does. A/Conf.13/L.54, printed below, p. 851, and A/Conf.13/ L.58.
8 Boggs, International Boundaries 176-192 (1940).
9 The text of the Convention on the Territorial Sea is in U.N. Does. A/CONT.13/ L.52, printed below, p. 834, and A/Conf.13/L.58. Even within the limits of that Convention, it would seem possible for states to disagree over the proper positions of baselines.
You have
Access
