¹ U.S. Dep't of State Media Note, Announcement of U.S. Extended Continental Shelf Outer Limits (Dec. 19, 2023), at https://www.state.gov/announcement-of-u-s-extended-continental-shelf-outer-limits.

² “Extended continental shelf” is a term of convenience. The term does not appear in the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea. As courts and tribunals have repeatedly reaffirmed, “there is in law only a single ‘continental shelf’ rather than an inner continental shelf and a separate extended or outer continental shelf.” Arbitration Between Barbados and the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago, RIAA, Vol. XXVII, at 147, 208–09 (Apr. 11, 2006), at https://legal.un.org/riaa/cases/vol_XXVII/147-251.pdf.

³ United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, Part VI and Arts. 210, 216, 246, opened for signature Dec. 10, 1982, 1833 UNTS 397, at https://www.un.org/Depts/los/convention_agreements/texts/unclos/unclos_e.pdf [hereinafter Convention].

⁴ Id. Art. 76(1–7).

⁵ Id. Art. 76(1).

⁶ Id. Pts. V, VII.

⁷ U.S. Extended Continental Shelf Project Office, World Map of Extended Continental Shelf Areas, Version 1.0 (Dec. 2023), at https://www.state.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/World-Map-of-Extended-Continental-Shelf-Areas-PDF.pdf.

⁸ Convention, supra note 3, Art. 1(1)(1) (defining the “Area” as “the seabed and ocean floor and subsoil thereof, beyond the limits of national jurisdiction”), Pt. XI (setting forth provisions pertaining to “The Area,” including with respect to the ISA).

⁹ UN Division for Ocean Affairs and the Law of the Sea (DOALOS), Submissions, Through the Secretary-General of the United Nations, to the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf, Pursuant to Article 76, Paragraph 8, of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea of 10 December 1982 (updated Mar. 14, 2024), at https://www.un.org/Depts/los/clcs_new/commission_submissions.htm [hereinafter Submissions].

¹⁰ Convention, supra note 3, Art. 76(8), Annex II.

¹¹ U.S. Dep't of State, U.S. ECS Project, Downloads, at https://www.state.gov/downloads-us-ecs-project.

¹² U.S. Dep't of State, Executive Summary: The Outer Limits of the Extended Continental Shelf of the United States of America 54–97 (2023), at https://www.state.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/ECS_Executive_Summary.pdf.

¹³ Public Notice 12244, Continental Shelf and Maritime Boundaries; Notice of Limits, Dec. 21, 2023, 88 Fed. Reg. 88470, at https://www.state.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/1400-AF75-Continental-shelf-and-maritime-boundaries.pdf. This notice also clarifies that, where the U.S. continental shelf does not extend beyond 200 nautical miles, the U.S. continental shelf limits are the same as those of the EEZ, as specified in Public Notice 12243. Public Notice 12243, Exclusive Economic Zone and Maritime Boundaries; Notice of Limits, Dec. 21, 2023, 88 Fed. Reg. 88477, at https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2023-12-21/pdf/2023-28158.pdf.

¹⁴ U.S. Extended Continental Shelf Project, at https://www.state.gov/continental-shelf.

¹⁵ U.S. ECS Project, About the U.S. ECS Project, at https://www.state.gov/about-the-us-ecs-project.

¹⁶ Executive Summary, supra note 12, at 11.

¹⁷ U.S. Dep't of State Press Release, Fact Sheet: Announcement of U.S. Extended Continental Shelf Outer Limits (Dec. 19, 2023), at https://www.state.gov/announcement-of-u-s-extended-continental-shelf-outer-limits-2.

¹⁸ See NCEI, U.S. Extended Continental Shelf Data, at https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/products/us-extended-continental-shelf-data (website providing information on U.S. data collection efforts in additional “possible ECS areas” such as the Hawaiian Islands).

¹⁹ U.S. Dep't of State, Executive Summary, supra note 12, at 7.

²⁰ Id. at 4.

²¹ U.S. ECS Project website, About ECS, at https://www.state.gov/about-ecs.

²² U.S. Dep't of State, Executive Summary, supra note 12, at 11, 13–52; region-specific poster-sized maps, at https://www.state.gov/the-us-ecs.

²³ See generally Scientific and Technical Guidelines of the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf, Doc. No. CLCS/11 (1999), at https://www.un.org/depts/los/clcs_new/documents/Guidelines/CLCS_11.htm.

²⁴ U.S. ECS Project, Data Collection, at https://www.state.gov/data-collection-us-ecs-project.

²⁵ The Center for Coastal and Ocean Mapping/Joint Hydrographic Center is a cooperative partnership between NOAA and the University of New Hampshire. CCOM, at https://ccom.unh.edu/theme/law-sea.

²⁶ U.S. ECS Project, Data Collection, supra note 24.

²⁷ U.S. Dep't of State, Executive Summary, supra note 12, at 13.

²⁸ Office of Ocean and Polar Affairs, U.S. Maritime Boundaries: Agreements and Treaties, at https://www.state.gov/u-s-maritime-boundaries-agreements-and-treaties.

²⁹ Rules of Procedure of the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf, Rule 50, UN Doc. No. CLCS/40/Rev.1 (2008), at https://www.un.org/depts/los/clcs_new/commission_rules.htm; DOALOS, Submissions, supra note 9.

³⁰ U.S. Dep't of State, Executive Summary, supra note 12.

³¹ U.S. Dep't of State Press Release, supra note 17.

³² Evan T. Bloom, Five Takeaways from the US Continental Shelf Announcement, Wilson Ctr. (Jan. 3, 2024), at https://www.wilsoncenter.org/article/five-takeaways-us-continental-shelf-announcement?collection=117654.

³³ James Kraska, Strategic Implication of the US Extended Continental Shelf, Wilson Ctr. (Dec. 19, 2023), at https://www.wilsoncenter.org/article/strategic-implication-us-extended-continental-shelf.

³⁴ See note 8 supra.

³⁵ In this regard, one observer has noted that, prior to the U.S. announcement, “scientists intending to conduct [marine scientific research] in areas potentially falling under U.S. jurisdiction had to seek confirmation from the U.S. Government on whether the seabed belongs to the Area or the U.S. ECS” and that “[t]his dynamic” has now changed.” Ekaterina Antsygina, Extended Continental Shelf of the United States: A Landmark Announcement and Its Implications, EJIL:Talk! (Jan. 18, 2024), at https://www.ejiltalk.org/extended-continental-shelf-of-the-united-states-a-landmark-announcement-and-its-implications.

³⁶ Cornell Overfield, Wealth on the Shelf: The U.S. Extended Continental Shelf Clarification, Lawfare (Jan. 26, 2024), at https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/wealth-on-the-shelf-the-u.s.-extended-continental-shelf-clarification (emphasizing the “clarification” aspect of the announcement).

³⁷ For an in-depth treatment of the historical development of the continental shelf regime, see Baumert, Kevin A., The Outer Limits of the Continental Shelf Under Customary International Law, 111 AJIL 827, 828–61 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

³⁸ Proclamation No. 2667, Policy of the United States with Respect to the Natural Resources of the Subsoil and Sea Bed of the Continental Shelf, Sept. 28, 1945, 10 Fed. Reg. 12303 (1945), at https://www.gc.noaa.gov/documents/gcil_proc_2667.pdf.

³⁹ Id. (emphasis added).

⁴⁰ From a scientific perspective, the continental shelf is the flat or gently sloping seabed and subsoil adjacent to a landmass; its outer limit is generally located near what is referred to as the shelf break, typically less than 200 meters, where ocean depths increase markedly. See, e.g., Hydrographic Dictionary, IHO Pub. S-32 (5th ed. 1994), at http://iho-ohi.net/S32/engView.php?quick_filter=shelf+&quick_filter_operator=Contains.

⁴¹ U.S. Dep't of State, Executive Summary, supra note 12, at 6.

⁴² Convention on the Continental Shelf, Apr. 29, 1958, TIAS 5578, 499 UNTS 311, at https://treaties.un.org/doc/Publication/UNTS/Volume%20499/v499.pdf.

⁴³ Id. Art. 1.

⁴⁴ See note 55 and corresponding text infra.

⁴⁵ Convention on the Continental Shelf, supra note 42, Art. 2.

⁴⁶ Id.

⁴⁷ North Sea Continental Shelf Cases (Ger. v. Den.), 1969 ICJ Rep. 3 (Feb. 20), at https://www.icj-cij.org/files/case-related/52/052-19690220-JUD-01-00-EN.pdf [hereinafter North Sea].

⁴⁸ Id., para. 63, at 39–40 (italics in original).

⁴⁹ U.S. Dep't of State, Executive Summary, supra note 12, at 6 (italics in original).

⁵⁰ North Sea, supra note 47, para. 63, at 39–40.

⁵¹ Id.

⁵² For discussion, see Baumert, supra note 37, at 833–35.

⁵³ Convention, supra note 3, pmbl., paras. 1, 2.

⁵⁴ See, e.g., GA Res. 78/69, pmbl. para. 5 (Dec. 11, 2023), at https://research.un.org/en/docs/ga/quick/regular/78.

⁵⁵ GA Res. 2574 (XXIV) (Dec. 15, 1969), at https://legal.un.org/diplomaticconferences/1973_los/docs/english/res/a_res_2574_xxiv.pdf (stating that “customary international law on the subject is inconclusive”).

⁵⁶ Convention, supra note 3, Art. 76(1).

⁵⁷ For a more detailed explanation of those provisions, see Baumert, supra note 37, at 845–48.

⁵⁸ 186th Plenary Meeting, XVII Official Records 24, UN Doc. A/CONF.62/SR.186 (1982), at https://legal.un.org/diplomaticconferences/1973_los/docs/english/vol_17/a_conf62_sr186.pdf.

⁵⁹ Dispute Concerning Delimitation of the Maritime Boundary Between Bangladesh and Myanmar in the Bay of Bengal, Judgment, para. 437 (ITLOS Mar. 14, 2012), at https://www.itlos.org/fileadmin/itlos/documents/cases/case_no_16/published/C16-J-14_mar_12.pdf (stating that Article 76(1) “should be understood in light of the subsequent provisions of the article defining the continental shelf and the continental margin,” namely paragraphs 2 to 7, and that paragraphs 1 and 4, “refer to the same area” (i.e., the continental margin)).

⁶⁰ Convention, supra note 3, Annex II (spells out the composition, mandate, and basic procedures of the Commission). The Commission has also established its own rules of procedure, supra note 29, and scientific and technical guidelines, supra note 23.

⁶¹ Convention, supra note 3, Art. 76(8).

⁶² The phrase “final and binding” has been subject to much commentary. For a thoughtful discussion, see Ted L. McDorman, The Role of the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf: A Technical Body in a Political World, 17 Int'l J. Marine & Coastal L. 301, 314–17 (2002).

⁶³ DOALOS, Submissions, supra note 9. These figures do not include revised or amended submissions.

⁶⁴ Rules of Procedure, supra note 29, Rule 51(4ter). See also DOALOS, Submissions, supra note 9.

⁶⁵ Id. Although the Commission is reviewing the more recently filed “revised submissions” of Brazil, Cook Islands, and Iceland, those countries’ original submissions were filed in 2009 or earlier.

⁶⁶ See Oxman, Bernard H., The Fortieth Anniversary of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, 99 Int'l L. Stud. 865, 873 (2022)Google Scholar, at https://digital-commons.usnwc.edu/ils/vol99/iss1/34 (conveniently listing coastal and landlocked states that are non-parties).

⁶⁷ Statute of the International Court of Justice, Art. 38(1)(b), June 26, 1945, 59 Stat. 1031, 8 UNTS 993, at https://legal.un.org/avl/pdf/ha/sicj/icj_statute_e.pdf.

⁶⁸ See generally International Law Commission, Draft Conclusions on Identification of Customary International Law with Commentaries, UN Doc. No. A/73/10 (2018), at https://legal.un.org/docs/?path=../ilc/texts/instruments/english/commentaries/1_13_2018.pdf&lang=EF [hereinafter ILC Draft Conclusions].

⁶⁹ North Sea, supra note 47, para. 77, at 44; ILC Draft Conclusions, supra note 67, Pt. Three (Conclusions 4–8), at 130–38.

⁷⁰ North Sea, supra note 47, paras. 74, 77, at 43–44; ILC Draft Conclusions, supra note 68, Pt. Four (Conclusions 9–10), at 138–140.

⁷¹ ILC Draft Conclusions, supra note 68, at 144.

⁷² Baumert, supra note 37, at 838.

⁷³ Id.

⁷⁴ Treves, Tullio, Remarks on Submissions to the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf in Response to Judge Marotta's Report, 21 Int'l J. Marine & Coastal L. 363, 363 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁷⁵ Baumert, supra note 37, at 828–57.

⁷⁶ Id.

⁷⁷ Question of the Delimitation of the Continental Shelf Between Nicaragua and Colombia Beyond 200 Nautical Miles from the Nicaraguan Coast (Nicar. v. Colom.), Judgment, para. 52 (Int'l Ct. Justice July 13, 2023), at https://www.icj-cij.org/case/154/judgments.

⁷⁸ Id. (diss. op., Tomka, J.) at 6, at https://www.icj-cij.org/sites/default/files/case-related/154/154-20230713-jud-01-01-en.pdf.

⁷⁹ Baumert, supra note 37, at 854; see also Bernard H. Oxman, Courts and Tribunals: The ICJ, ITLOS, and Arbitral Tribunals, in The Oxford Handbook of the Law of the Sea 411 (Donald R. Rothwell, Alex G. Oude Elferink, Karen N. Scott & Tim Stephens eds., 2015); Khaled Elmahmoud, American Pick and Choose or Customary International Law?, EJIL:Talk! (Jan. 17, 2024), at https://www.ejiltalk.org/american-pick-and-choose-or-customary-international-law (italics in original).

⁸⁰ See note 58 and corresponding text supra.

⁸¹ As a general matter, institutional provisions such as these contained in a treaty are binding on a state only through its express consent. See, e.g., Case Concerning Military and Paramilitary Activities in and Against Nicaragua (Nicar. v. U.S.), Judgment, 1986 ICJ Rep. 14 paras. 178, 188, 200 (June 27), at https://www.icj-cij.org/sites/default/files/case-related/70/070-19860627-JUD-01-00-EN.pdf (distinguishing between rules of customary international law and treaty provisions of an institutional kind, in particular the reporting requirement in Article 51 of the UN Charter).

⁸² Several judges expressed views that align with this conclusion in: Territorial and Maritime Dispute (Nicar. v. Colom.), Judgment, 2012 ICJ Rep. 624 (Nov. 19), at https://www.icj-cij.org/case/124/judgments. See, e.g., id. (dec., Mensah, J. ad hoc), para. 8, at https://www.icj-cij.org/sites/default/files/case-related/124/124-20121119-JUD-01-06-EN.pdf (describing paragraph 8 as a “treaty obligation” that “cannot be considered as imposing mandatory obligations on all States under customary international law”).

⁸³ U.S. ECS Project, Frequently Asked Questions, at https://www.state.gov/faq-us-ecs-project.

⁸⁴ For discussion, see Baumert, supra note 37, at 865 (“Non-party Submission”).

⁸⁵ UNCLOS, Report of the Eighth Meeting of States Parties, paras. 51–52, UN Doc. No. SPLOS/31 (1998), at https://undocs.org/Home/Mobile?FinalSymbol=SPLOS%2F31&Language=E&DeviceType=Desktop&LangRequested=False.

⁸⁶ See Baumert, Kevin A., Article 76 of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea: Parties and Non-Parties, 99 Int'l L. Stud. 963 (2022)Google Scholar, at https://digital-commons.usnwc.edu/ils/vol99/iss1/37. By contrast, Part XI of the Convention pertaining to membership in the ISA and Part XV concerning dispute settlement (e.g., ITLOS, arbitral tribunals) are textually limited to “States Parties.”

⁸⁷ The mandates of human rights treaty bodies, for instance, pertain to the states parties of the relevant treaties. See OHCHR, What the Treaty Bodies Do: Treaty Bodies, at https://www.ohchr.org/en/treaty-bodies/what-treaty-bodies-do.

⁸⁸ For a discussion of the views of judges and experts on this matter, see Baumert, supra note 86, at 985–88.

⁸⁹ Baumert, supra note 37, at 845.

⁹⁰ Id. at 831–45.

⁹¹ David Malakoff, Continental Shelf Maps Could Add Egypt-Size Area to U.S. Territory, Science (Jan. 9, 2024), at https://www.science.org/content/article/continental-shelf-maps-could-add-egypt-size-area-u-s-territory (referring to the “U.N. commission that evaluates ECS claims”). Although the UN secretary-general serves as its secretariat, the CLCS is a treaty body established under the Convention and not part of the UN system. Convention, supra note 3, Annex II, Art. 2(5).

⁹² See, e.g., Abbie Tingstad, The US Is Taking an Important, but Imperfect Step in Initiating Extended Continental Shelf Claims – What Are the Implications for the Arctic?, Wilson Ctr. (Dec. 19, 2023), at https://www.wilsoncenter.org/article/us-taking-important-imperfect-step-initiating-extended-continental-shelf-claims-what-are?collection=117654 (referring to the Convention's “process for arbitrating ECS claims” and its “mechanism for coastal states to claim additional economic rights” beyond 200 nautical miles).

⁹³ Convention, supra note 3, Annex II, Art. 3(1)(a).

⁹⁴ Bay of Bengal, supra note 59, para. 409 (emphases added). Note that this judgment applied the Convention as a matter of treaty law. Thus, even for Convention parties, continental shelf entitlement does not depend on the CLCS process.

⁹⁵ Id., para. 408 (citing Convention Article 77, which repeats Article 2 of the 1958 Continental Shelf Convention).

⁹⁶ North Sea, supra note 47, para. 63, at 39–40.

⁹⁷ See, e.g., Executive Summary of the Partial Submission of Canada to the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf (Atlantic Region), 3 (2013), at https://www.un.org/Depts/los/clcs_new/submissions_files/can70_13/es_can_en.pdf (“As reflected in article 77 of the Convention, the rights of a coastal State over its continental shelf exist ipso facto and ab initio.”); Continental Shelf Submission of Australia: Executive Summary, 49 (2004), at https://www.un.org/Depts/los/clcs_new/submissions_files/aus04/Documents/aus_doc_es_web_delivery.pdf (accompanying diplomatic note referring to Article 77 of the Convention and stating that continental shelf rights “do not depend on any express proclamation”). So too, coastal states do not necessarily refrain from exercising their continental shelf beyond 200 nautical miles prior to establishing ECS limits based on CLCS recommendations. See, e.g., Baumert, supra note 37, at 863 (noting examples).

⁹⁸ Rules of Procedure, supra note 29, Annex I (in particular, para. 5) (reflecting the policy to not review and recommend upon submissions relating to a “land or maritime dispute” unless the “prior consent [is] given by all States that are parties to such a dispute”). The CLCS also does not review submissions pertaining to continental shelf appurtenant to Antarctica. See, e.g., CLCS, Recommendations of the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf (CLCS) in Regard to the Submission Made by Australia on 15 November 2004, paras. 4–5 (2008), at https://www.un.org/Depts/los/clcs_new/submissions_files/aus04/Aus_Recommendations_FINAL.pdf.

⁹⁹ DOALOS, Submissions, supra note 9.

¹⁰⁰ Jan Jakub Solski, The US Arctic Gambit: Testing the Limits of UNCLOS, Arctic Inst. (Jan. 16, 2024), at https://www.thearcticinstitute.org/us-arctic-gambit-testing-limits-unclos.

¹⁰¹ See, e.g., Helmut Tuerk, Questions Relating to the Continental Shelf Beyond 200 Nautical Miles: Delimitation, Delineation, and Revenue Sharing, 97 Int'l L. Stud. 232, 249 (2021), at https://digital-commons.usnwc.edu/ils/vol97/iss1/18 (stating that “if a non-party wishes to engage in such a course of action [i.e., ‘file a submission with the CLCS’], it would not make sense from the point of view of the interests of the international community to prevent that State from doing so”); see also, Baumert, supra note 37, at 864–65 (including contrary views).

¹⁰² U.S. Dep't of State, Executive Summary, supra note 12.

¹⁰³ Suzanne Lalonde, Complexity Does Not Signify Failure, Polar Perspectives, No. 15, Wilson Ctr. (2024), at https://www.wilsoncenter.org/publication/polar-perspectives-no-15-complexity-does-not-signify-failure.

¹⁰⁴ Bloom, supra note 32.

¹⁰⁵ Antsygina, supra note 35. For instance, the Commission did not issue recommendations pertaining to Japan's Kyushu-Palau Ridge region owing to objections from China and the Republic of Korea stating that Japan's Oki-no-Tori Shima Island is a “rock” under Article 121(3) of the Convention. These objections did not purport to fall within the Commission's rules relating to a land or maritime dispute. See CLCS, Summary of Recommendations of the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf in regard to the Submission Made by Japan, paras. 15–20 (2012), at https://www.un.org/Depts/los/clcs_new/submissions_files/submission_jpn.htm.

¹⁰⁶ Antsygina, supra note 35.

¹⁰⁷ See note 62 supra.

¹⁰⁸ Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, Art. 34, May 23, 1969, 1155 UNTS 331, at https://legal.un.org/ilc/texts/instruments/english/conventions/1_1_1969.pdf (“A treaty does not create either obligations or rights for a third State [i.e., non-party] without its consent.”).

¹⁰⁹ McDorman, supra note 62, at 319.

¹¹⁰ U.S. Dep't of State, Executive Summary, supra note 12, at 4.

¹¹¹ Solski, supra note 100.

¹¹² NCEI, U.S. Extended Continental Shelf Data, at https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/products/us-extended-continental-shelf-data (providing access to data).

¹¹³ U.S. Dep't of State, Executive Summary, supra note 12, at 13. The mandate of the Commission “to provide scientific and technical advice, if requested by the coastal State” has, in practice, often been discharged by Commission members furnishing such advice in their individual expert capacity. Convention, supra note 3, Annex II, Art. 3(1)(b).

¹¹⁴ U.S. Dep't of State, Executive Summary, supra note 12, at 15–16 (map).

¹¹⁵ Denmark has described this interconnectedness, referring to an “an amalgamation of seafloor highs and other features, that includes the Lomonosov Ridge, the Gakkel Ridge, the Alpha-Mendeleev ridge complex and the Chukchi Borderland, that are all morphologically continuous with the land mass of Greenland, and thereby constitute integral parts of the Northern Continental Margin of Greenland.” Partial Submission of the Government of the Kingdom of Denmark Together with the Government of Greenland to the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf: The Northern Continental Shelf of Greenland, Executive Summary, 12 (2014), at https://www.un.org/Depts/los/clcs_new/submissions_files/submission_dnk_76_2014.htm.

¹¹⁶ CLCS, Recommendations of the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf in Regard to the Partial Revised Submission Made by the Russian Federation in Respect of the Arctic Ocean, para. 79, fig. 13 (2023), at https://www.un.org/Depts/los/clcs_new/submissions_files/submission_rus_rev1.htm (showing the outer edge of the continental margin delineated continuously from the Chukchi Borderland to the Alpha Ridge, which is referred to as “Mendeleev-Alpha Rise”).

¹¹⁷ Malakoff, supra note 91 (quoting David Mosher, a member of the Commission); U.S. Dep't of State, Executive Summary, supra note 12, at 13 (David Mosher).

¹¹⁸ See Office of Ocean and Polar Affairs, supra note 29.

¹¹⁹ Elmahmoud, supra note 79 (italics in original). UNCLOS refers to the Convention.

¹²⁰ See, e.g., Tullio Treves, United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea: Introductory Note, UN, 2 (2008), at https://legal.un.org/avl/ha/uncls/uncls.html.

¹²¹ Convention, supra note 3, Art. 309.

¹²² See observations of Lalonde and Bloom, text corresponding to notes 103 and 104 supra.

¹²³ It is also notable that the U.S. position on the customary international law status of Article 76(1–7) is not a recent position adopted out of expediency. The United States has been maintained this position continuously and without objection by other states since 1987. U.S. Dep't Of State, Office of the Legal Adviser, Cumulative Digest of U.S. Practice in International Law 1981–1988, at 1878–79 (1993), citing Memorandum from Assistant Secretary John D. Negroponte to Deputy Legal Adviser Elizabeth Verville, Nov. 17, 1987.

¹²⁴ See Antsygina, supra note 35; Overfield, supra note 36.

¹²⁵ Convention, supra note 3, Art. 82.

¹²⁶ See, e.g., the website of the Interior Department's Bureau of Ocean Energy Management pertaining to Offshore Critical Mineral Resources (describing this “underexplored and untapped resource”), at https://www.boem.gov/marine-minerals/offshore-critical-mineral-resources.

¹²⁷ It would be difficult to conclude that Article 82 is part of customary international law given the dearth of state practice as well its procedural and institutional nature (pertaining to the ISA).

¹²⁸ See U.S. ECS Project, Frequently Asked Questions, supra note 83.

¹²⁹ Message from the President of the United States Transmitting United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (with Annexes and 1994 Agreement), S. Treaty Doc. 103-39 (1994), at https://www.foreign.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/treaty_103-39.pdf.

¹³⁰ U.S. Dep't of State, Executive Summary, supra note 12, at 98–99.