1 Done April 29, 1958, 499 U.N.T.S. 311, [1964] 1 U.S.T. 471, T.I.A.S. No. 5578, entered into force June 10, 1964 [hereinafter cited as “Continental Shelf Convention”]. Reprinted in 52 A.J.I.L. 858 (1958).

Art. 1 of the Continental Shelf Convention is as follows: “For the purpose of these articles the term “continental shelf’ is used as referring (a) to the seabed and subsoil of the submarine areas adjacent to the coast but outside the area of the territorial sea, to a depth of 200 metres or, beyond that limit, to where the depth of the superjacent waters admits of the exploitation of the natural resources of the said areas; (b) to the seabed and subsoil of similar submarine areas adjacent to the coasts of islands.”

2 The “broad” continental shelf may be defined as the extension of the coastal states’ exclusive continental shelf jurisdiction out to the “continental rise” beyond the “toe” of the slopes where the continental pedestal joins the abyssal plains. This is not really so much a claim to the continental shelf as to the whole continental pedestal. The “narrow” continental shelf may be defined as the region of coastal states’ exclusive continental shelf jurisdiction out to, and terminating at, the 200 meter bathymetric contour line. For a discussion and evaluation of the “wide” and “narrow” continental shelf theories, respectively, see Henkin, , Law for the Sea’s Mineral Resources 37–41, 45–46 (ISHA Mono. No. 1, 1968)Google Scholar; see also Henkin, , Papers: The Continental Shelf, the Law of the Sea Institute, National Policy Recommendations (Procs. of the 4th Annual Conf. of the Law of the Sea Institute, June 23–26, 1969 Google Scholar, Univ. of Rhode Island, Kingston, R.I.) 171, 174–78 (mhneo. March 1970); Henkin, , “International Law and The Interests’: The Law of the Seabed,” 63 A.J.I.L. 504 (1969)Google Scholar [hereinafter cited as “Henkin, “The Interest’”]. For die opposite side of this polemic see Finlay, , “The Outer Limits of the Continental Shelf,” 64 A.J.I.L. 42 (1970)Google Scholar. For examples of assertions of the “wide shelf” thesis see, Hedberg, Limits of National Jurisdiction over Natural Resources of the Ocean Bottom, the Law of the Sea Institue, National Policy Recommendations (cited above) 159 (mimeo. March 1970); National Petroleum Council, Petroleum Resources under the Ocean Floor 55–67 (1969); National Petroleum Council, Petroleum Resources under the Ocean Floor: A Supplemental Report passim (1971); Comm. on Deep Sea Mineral Resources of the Amer. Branch of the Int’l L. Assoc., Interim Report passim (1968) and Second Interim Report 1, 4–5 (1970). A review of these two “Interim Reports” shows them to be additional manifestations of the National Petroleum Council’s anxieties.

3 [1969] I.C.J. 3, 30. Reprinted in 8 I.L.M. 340.

4 Friedmann, , The Future of the Oceans 39–42 (1971)Google Scholar [hereinafter cited as “Friedmann, ‘Oceans’”].

5 I.e., its Judgment in the North Sea Continental Shelf Cases, [1969] I.C.J. 3.

6 See supra, the text accompanying note 3 for the completion of this quotation from the Judgment.

7 Friedmann, Oceans, supra note 4, at 41–42.

8 Henkin, “The Interests”, supra note 2, at 508.

9 Id.

10 For an analysis of this case’s significance see Goldie, , “The North Sea Continental Shelf Cases—A Ray of Hope for the International Court?” 16 N.Y.L. Forum 325 (1970)Google Scholar [hereinafter cited as “Goldie, ‘North Sea Cases’”], and more particularly, for a discussion of the Court’s rationale for finding Art. 6 of the Continental Shelf Convention not applicable to the case before it, see id. 330, 336–38.

11 For a discussion of this introduction of an important new doctrine into public international law, see Goldie, ‘North Sea Cases’, supra note 10, at 359–67.

12 [1969] I.C.J. 3, 28.

13 For the Court’s reliance on the concept of the continental shelf as the “natural prolongation” of the coastal states’ landward territory, see, id. 3, 29–31, 36–37, 39–40, 43–44, 47, 51. For Prof. Friedmann’s objection to the Court’s formulation of the term “natural prolongation” see Friedmann, , “The North Sea Continental Shelf Cases— A Critique,” 64 A.J.I.L. 229, 236–37 (1970)Google Scholar. While one may concede that Prof. Friedmann has a point with regard to the Court’s choice of words, it was merely choosing a descriptive label for an important concept. Although I shall (for the sake of clarity of meaning and communication) continue to use the Court’s terminology in the present discussion, I would like to suggest, with all due respect, an alternative phrase which would more clearly indicate the legal ascriptive characteristics of the connection between the coastal state and the continental shelf, namely “legally appurtenant prolongation”. On the complexity of the concept of adjacency, when related to the continental shelf defined as “the natural prolongation of the coastal state’s land domain” in the context of at least three abutting states, see Goldie, “North Sea Cases,” supra note 10, at 325, 332–36.

14 See [1969] I.C.J. 3, 13 where the Court wrote: “The waters of the North Sea are shallow, and the whole seabed consists of a continental shelf of less than 200 metres, except for the formation known as the Norwegian Trough, a belt of water 200–650 metres deep, fringing the southern and south-western coasts of Norway to a width averaging 80–100 kilometres.”

15 The only portion of the North Sea which extends to depths greater than 200 meters, namely the feature known as the Norwegian Trough, was outside the scope of this dispute as being, in the Court’s words, “already . . . the subject of delimitation by a series of agreements concluded between the United Kingdom ( . . . ) and certain States on the Eastern side, namely Norway, Denmark and the Netherlands”.

16 [1969] I.C.J. 3, 37.

17 Supra note 11.

18 [1969] I.C.J. 3, 47.

19 Id. 31.

20 I.e., those quoted in the text accompanying footnote 3, supra.

21 Intl. L. Comm’n., “Draft Articles on the Continental Shelf and Related Subjects,” see Intl. L. Comm’n., Report Covering the Work of Its Third Session, 16 May-27 July 1951, 6 U.N. GAOR, Supp. 9 at 17; [19511 2 Y.B. Intl. L. Comm’n. 123,141, U.N. Doc. A/1858 (1951).

22 Intl. L. Comm’n., Report Covering the Work of its Fifth Session, 1 June-14 August 1953, 8 U.N. GAOR, Supp. 9 at 12; [1953] 2 Y.B. Intl. L. Comm’n. 200, 212, U.N. Doc. A/2456 (1953).

23 Intl. L. Comm’n, Report Covering the Work of its Eighth Session, 23 April-4 July 1956, 11 U.N. GAOR, Supp. 9 at 11; [19561 2 Y.B. Intl L. Comm’n. 253, 264, 296, U.N. Doc. A/3159 (1956).

24 On the acceptance of these terms as having identical meanings, with contiguity constituting the technical term regarding territorial issues, see Goldie, , “Australia’s Continental Shelf: Legislation and Proclamations,” 3 Intl. & Comp. L. Q. 535, 561–63 (1954)Google Scholar, and the authorities there cited.

25 [19561 1 Y.B. Intl. L. Comm’n. 37 (Dr. Garcia Amador, Chairman, J.P.A. Frangois, Special Rapporteur, and Sir Gerald Fitzmaurice); Commentary (8) on Art. 67 (die Commission’s draft of what later became Art. 1 of the Continental Shelf Convention), U.N. Doc. A/3159 at 42, [1956] 2 Y.B. Intl. L. Comm’n. 297; U.N. Doc. A/CONF. 13/24 at 8 (Alvarez Aybar), 41 (Gutteridge, discussing the joint proposal of the United Kingdom and the Netherlands, U.N. Doc. A/CONF. 13/C.4/L.32, note the use of the term “adjacent” in para. 1 of the United Kingdom’s revised proposal, U.N. Doc. A/CONF. 13/C.4/L.24/Rev. 1.)

26 See, e.g., N.Y. Times, Aug. 28, 1969, at 1 col. 7, and at 4 cols. 3–5; id., Sept. 1, 1969, at 2 cols. 7–8; and id., Sept. 24, 1969, at 3, col. 2.

27 See, for the rejection of a proposal to substitute “submarine areas” for “continental shelf” In Art. 1 [1953] 1 Y.B. Int’l. L. Comm’n. 83 (Lauterpacht); [1956] 1 Y.B. Intl. L. Comm’n. 132 (Francois); Commentary (9) on Art. 67, U.N. Doc. A/3159 at 42, [1956] 2 Y.B. Int’l. L. Comm’n. 297; U.N. Doc. A/CONF. 13/42 at 35–36 (Gutteridge), 37 (Ruiz-Moreno), 43 (Obiols-Gomez).