Srl | Item |
1 |
ID:
172432
|
|
|
Summary/Abstract |
This article examines the practice of the international judicial and arbitral tribunals thus far in delimiting the continental shelf beyond 200 nm, and indicates the trend reflected in the decisions. However, the article disagrees with the critical observation of the tribunals that the delimitation method for the continental shelf beyond 200 nm should follow that within 200 nm. The delimitation of the continental shelf beyond 200 nm is essentially different from the single maritime delimitation within 200 nm, and various methods may be employed in order to achieve an equitable result in a particular case.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2 |
ID:
173427
|
|
|
Summary/Abstract |
It is clear from the plain words of the Article 76, paragraph 10, of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea that the questions involving the outer limits of the continental shelf beyond 200 nautical miles are without prejudice to the question of delimitation of the continental shelf between states with opposite or adjacent coasts. However, the two processes impact each other, which gives rise to more complex dynamics than may be perceived from a cursory reading of Article 76. This article explores the relationship between the two separate but inherently related processes in light of the relevant jurisprudence and doctrinal commentaries thereto.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3 |
ID:
187406
|
|
|
Summary/Abstract |
The lack of transparency in the work of the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf constitutes a major issue for both submitting and third states. In this respect, a careful reader of the reports of UNCLOS Meeting of the States Parties would not fail to discern the constant calls for transparency in the work of this body. While much has already been said on the transparency/confidentiality issues in the work of the Commission, new issues have emerged, such as the question of transparency in the internal relationship between the Commission and its subcommission. Prompted by this observation, this article discusses the process of implementing Article 76 of UNCLOS through the prism of transparency, opacity, and confidentiality, with a particular focus on the instances of disagreements between the subcommission and the Commission in plenary.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|