* This article is written in an unofficial capacity.

1 Final Act of the United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea (Geneva, February 24-April 27, 1958), A/Conf.13/L.58. The session of April 27 continued through the early morning of April 28, with signature taking place on April 29.

2 General Assembly, 11th Sess., Official Records, Supp. No. 17 (A/3572).

3 Ibid., par. 2. The General Assembly also recommended that the Conference should study “the question of free access to the sea of land-locked countries, as established by international practice or treaties.” (Ibid., par. 3.)

4 General Assembly, 11th Sess., Official Records, Supp. No. 9 (A/3159); 51 A.J.I.L. 154 (1957). In 1951, at its 3rd Session, the International Law Commission (hereafter referred to as ILC) adopted draft articles on the Continental Shelf, with Commentary (ILC Report, 3rd Sess., 1951, General Assembly, 6th Sess., Official Records, Supp. No. 9 (A/1858), pp. 17-19, 45 A.J.I.L. Supp. 103 at 139 (1951)). “Comments by governments on the draft articles on the continental shelf and related subjects prepared by the International Law Commission at its third session in 1951” are published in Annex II, ILC Report, 5th Sess., 1953, General Assembly, 8th Sess., Official Records, Supp. No. 9 (A/2456), beginning at p. 42. The “Draft articles on the continental shelf,” with Commentary, constituting the second draft on the subject by the ILC, is contained in the ILC Report, 5th Sess., 1953, ibid., beginning at p. 12; see also 48 A.J.I.L. Supp. 27 (1954). In 1956, at its 8th Session, the Commission re-examined its previous draft of articles on the continental shelf “ i n the context of the other sections of the rules of the law of the sea.'’ A draft was approved by the ILC at that Session, with Commentary, which was submitted to the General Assembly (at its 11th Session) as Section III, “Conti- nental Shelf,” Part II, “High Seas,” of the “Law of the Sea.” (ILC Report, 8th Sess., 1956, General Assembly, 11th Sess., Official Records, Supp. No. 9 (A/3159), pp. 11-12, 40-45.) It was this draft prepared by the ILC that was the basis of discussion of the Geneva Conference on the Law of the Sea. By Res. 1105 (XI) of Feb. 21, 1957, the General Assembly requested the U.N. Secretary General to prepare or arrange for the preparation of working documents of a legal, technical, scientific or economic nature in order to facilitate the work of the Conference (General Assembly, 11th Sess., Official Records, Supp. No. 17 (A/3572), par. 7(c)). Documentation supplied included: “Scientific Considerations Relating to the Continental Shelf,” memorandum by Secretariat of U.N. Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (A/Conf.13/2 and ibid./Add.l) ; “The law of the air and the articles concerning the law of the sea adopted by the International Law Commission at its eighth session,” by E. Pépin, Director of the Institute of International Air Law, McGill University (A/Conf.13/4) ; “Comments by Governments on the Articles concerning the Law of the Sea Prepared by the International Law Commission at its Eighth Session” (A/Conf.13/5 and ibid./Corr. 1, ibid./Add.l and ibid./Corr.X, ibid./ Add.2-4); “Memorandum on pollution of the sea by oil,” by U.N. Secretariat (A/ Conf.13/8); “Technical Particulars Concerning the Methods of Fishing Conducted by Means of Equipment Embedded in the Flocr of the Sea,'’ by Secretariat of the U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization (A/Conf.13/12) ; “Examination of Living Resources Associated with the Sea Bed of the Continental Shelf with regard to the Nature and Degree of their Physical and Biological Association with Such Sea Bed,” by Secretariat of the U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization (A/Conf.13/13); “Bibliographical Guide to the Law of the Sea,” prepared by the U.N. Secretariat (A/Conf.13/17); “Verbatim record of the debate in the Sixth Committee of the General Assembly, at its eleventh session, relating to agenda item 53 ( a ) “ (A/Conf.13/19); “Report of the Secretary- General on the Preparation of the Conference” (A/Conf.13/20); “Reference guide to resolutions and records concerning the law of the sea adopted by world-wide or regional international conferences and meetings'’ by the U.N. Secretariat (A/Conf. 13/21, ibid./Con. 1), and ibid./Add.l); “Guide to decisions of international tribunals relating to the law of the sea” by the U.N. Secretariat (A/Conf.13/22 and ibid./Corr. 1); “List in chronological order of international agreements relating to fisheries and other questions affecting the utilization and conservation of the resources of the sea“ by the U.N. Secretariat (A/Conf.13/23); “Information submitted by Governments regarding laws, decrees and regulations for the prevention of pollution of the seas“ (A/Conf.13/24); “Recent Developments in the Technology of Exploiting the Mineral Resources of the Continental Shelf,” by Dr. M. W. Mouton (A/Conf.13/25) ; “The Breadth of the Safety Zone for Installations Necessary for the Exploration and Exploitation of the Natural Resources of the Continental Shelf,” by Dr. M. W. Mouton (A/Conf. 13/26); “Resolutions by and Communication from the International Council of Scientific Unions concerning Part II, Section III of the Articles concerning the Law of the Sea (Continental Shelf),” transmitted by the U.N. Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (A/Conf.13/28) ; “Table of References to Comments by Governments on the Articles concerning the law of the sea adopted by the International Law Commission at its successive sessions and to the relevant statements in the Sixth Committee at the eleventh and previous sessions of the General Assembly“ by the U.N. Secretariat (A/Conf.13/30 and ibid./Corr.X).

5 General Assembly, 11th Sess., Official Records, Supp. No. 17 (A/3572), par. 9. The relevant verbatim records of the General Assembly were also referred to the Conference for consideration in conjunction with the Commission's Report. Ibid.

6 The Rules of Procedure (A/Conf.13/35), adopted by the Conference in Plenary on Feb. 24, 1958 (A/CONP.13/SR.1, p. 8), established in Rule 47 that the Fourth Committee should be a main committee of the Conference and that this committee should consider those articles concerning the law of the sea which dealt with the continental shelf. Those articles of the 1956 ILC draft were Arts. 67-73 inclusive.

7 A/Conf. 13/C.4/SE.1, p. 2. All references to Summary Records (SR) herein are to the Provisional Summary Records.

8 A/Conf.13/C.4/SE. 2, p. 2.

9 A/Conf.13/L.2; A/Conf. 13/C.4/SE.3, p. 2.

10 The Report of the Fourth Committee, April 19, 1958, states that “The Committee held 41 meetings during the course of the Conference.” (A/Conf.13/L.12.) The draft of the Report of the Fourth Committee (A/Conf.13/C.4/L.67) was adopted on April 18, 1958, at the 42nd Meeting of Committee IV (A/Conf.13/C.4/SE.42).

11 The idea of ‘ ‘ internationalization'’ of the shelf found slight support. The German Federal Republic proposed “ self -executing rules governing the exploration and exploitation of the subsoil of the sea” in favor of the international community (A/Conf. 13/ 0.4/L.l; A/Conf.13/C.4/SE.6, pp. 2-3). The representative of Monaco seemed to favor internationalization and suggested establishment of an international office of thes sea, set up in conformity with Arts. 55 and 59 of the Charter of the United Nations (A/ Conf.13/C.4/SE.9, p. 12). The representative of Japan pointed to the “generally recognized” need to exploit the resources of the continental shelf for the benefit of mankind, and stated that Japan could not admit that it was necessary to vest a monopoly of rights in the coastal state ibid., p. 2).

12 The spokesman of the U. S. Delegation in Committee IV was Miss Marjorie M. Whiteman, Assistant Legal Adviser, Department of State. U. S. Advisers on Committee IV were: Mr. Paul Averitt, Geological Survey, Department of Interior; Mr. Warren E. Baker, General Counsel, Federal Communications Commission; Captain Rafael C. Benitez, U.S.N., Office of the Secretary of Defense; Mr. William E. Neblett, Executive Director, National Shrimp Congress, Tallahassee, Florida; Dr. G. Etzel Pearcy, Geographer, Department of State; Dr. Oscar E. Sette, Fish and Wildlife Service, Department of Interior; Mr. William M. Terry, Fish and Wildlife Service, Department of Interior; and Mr. Marten H. A. van Heuven, Office of the Legal Adviser, Department of State. For membership of the U. S. Delegation see A/Conf.13/L.6. Mr. Arthur H. Dean of New York was Chairman of the Delegation. Mr. William Sanders, Special Assistant to the Under Secretary of State, was Vice Chairman.

13 President Truman's Proclamation, Sept. 28, 1945, No. 2667, 59 Stat., Pt. 2, p. 884, 3 CFR, 1943-1948 Comp., p. 67; and White House Press Release, Sept. 28, 1945, 13 Dept. of State Bulletin 484-485 (1945); 40 A.J.I.L. Supp. 45 (1946).

14 Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, approved Aug. 7, 1953, 67 Stat. 462 (P. L. 212); 48 A.J.I.L. Supp. 110 (1954).

15 March 14, 1958, A/Conf.13/C.4/SE.10, pp. 4-5; US/PK 6, March 14, 1958.

16 Report of the Fourth Committee, A/Conf. 13/L. 12.

17 Final text of Convention on the Continental Shelf adopted by the Conference, Final Act, A/Conf.13/L.58; ibid./L.55, printed below, p. 858.

18 Ibid., p. 1.

19 ILC Report, 3rd Sess., 1951, General Assembly, 6th Sess., Official Records, Supp. No. 9 (A/1858), p. 17. The United States in its comment on the 1951 draft of the ILC did not comment specifically upon this article. Speaking generally, it merely stated: “the Government of the United States is in general agreement with the principles which appear to inspire the draft articles of part I, Continental Shelf.” (Printed in ILC Report, 5th Sess., 1953, Annex II, General Assembly, 8th Sess., Official Records, No. 9 (A/2456), pp. 42, 70-71.)

20 Ibid., p. 12. In its comment on the ILC 1953 draft on the Law of the Sea, the United States did not comment specifically on this article.

21 ILC Report, 8th Sess., 1956, loc. cit., p. 41. It is to be borne in mind that meanwhile the Resolution of Ciudad Trujillo set forth for consideration by the American States the following conclusion: ” 1 . The sea-bed and subsoil of the continental shelf, continental and insular terrace, or other submarine areas, adjacent to the coastal state, outside the area of the territorial sea, and 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 sea-bed and subsoil, appertain exclusively to that state and are subject to its jurisdiction and control.” (Resolution I, Final Act, Inter-American Specialized Conference on “Conservation of Natural Resources: The Continental Shelf and Marine Waters,” signed March 28, 1956, p. 13.) This text had its origin in a proposal of the Dominican Republic, which without directly defining the continental shelf, would have given control over its soil and subsoil ” u p to a limit in which these operations (exploration and development) can be efficiently and effectively extended.“

22 A/Conf. 13/C.4/L.26. This proposal was approved by a vote of 31 (U. S.) in favor; 10 against; and 25 abstentions. A/Conf.13/C.4/SB. 19 (March 25, 1958), p. 4. The Committee decided to consider all proposals as amendments to the ILC text, and accordingly the amendments were voted upon prior to any vote upon the ILC text.

23 A/Conf.13/C.4/L.12; A/Conf.13/C.4/SE. 19, p. 2 [“200 metres” replaced by “550 metres“].

24 A/Conf.13/C.4/L.7; A/Conf.13/C.4/L.8.

25 A/Conf.13/C.4/L.29/Rev. 1.

26 A/Conf.13/C.4/L.30; A/Conf. 13/C.4/SE.19, p. 3.

27 A/Conf.13/C.4/L.30; A/Conf.13/C.4/SE. 19, pp. 2, 3 [“200 metres” replaced by “550 meters“].

28 A/Conf.13/C.4/L.4.

29 A/Conf.13/C.4/L.11.

30 A/Conf.13/C.4/SE.19 (March 25, 1958), pp. 4-5. The text as adopted was subsequently referred to a Drafting Group established by Committee IV, as were other articles subsequently adopted by the Committee. The Drafting Group was comprised of members of the Bureau and the following six representatives on Committee IV: Miss Whiteman (United States of America), Mr. Molodtsov (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics), Mr. Patey (France), Mr. Wershof (Canada), Mr. Barros (Chile), and Mr. Jhirad (India). Mr. Perera chaired the group. In addition to the Chairman, other members of the Bureau were: the Vice Chairman, the Rapporteur, and the Secretary.

31 A/Conf.13/C.4/SE. 16 (March 21, 1958), p. 7.

32 Final Act, A/Conf.13/L.58; i6id./L.55, p. 1.

33 ILC Report, 3rd Sess., 1951, General Assembly, 6th Sess., Official Records, Supp. No. 9 (A/1858), p. 18. The United States, in its comment on the 1951 draft, stated: “This Government is under the impression that the draft articles in part I, Continental Shelf, intend to establish in favor of the coastal State an exclusive right to the exploration of the continental shelf and the exploitation of its resources. This Government wonders, accordingly, whether it would not be advisable to make it clear, at least in the commentaries, that control and jurisdiction for the purpose indicated in the draft articles mean in fact an exclusive, but functional, right to explore and exploit.“ (ILC Report, 5th Sess., 1953, Annex II, General Assembly, 8th Sess., Official Records, Supp. No. 9 (A/2456), p. 70.)

34 Ibid., p. 12.

35 ILC Report, 8th Sess., 1956, loc. cit., p. 42.

36 Ibid.

37 Ibid.

38 A/Conf.13/C.4/L.31.

39 A/Conf.13/C.4/SK.20, pp. 5-6.

40 A/Conf.13/C.4/L.43.

41 Ibid.

42 A/Conf.13/C.4/SE. 24, p. 5.

43 A/Conf.13/C.4/L.2.

44 A/Conf.13/C.4/SE.24, p. 5.

45 A/Conf.13/C.4/L.19/Rev. 1.

46 A/Conf.13/C.4/SE. 24, p. 5.

47 Ibid., pp. 5-6.

48 A/Conf.13/SE.8, pp. 8-9.

49 Ibid,., p. 11. B

50 A/Conf.13/C.4/L.13.

51 A/Conf.13/C.4/L.6/Rev. 2.

52 A/Conf.13/C.4/SE.24, p. 7.

53 ILC Report, 8th Sess., 1956, loc. cit., p. 42.

54 A/Conf.13/C.4/L.45 and Corr. 1; A/Conf.13/C.4/SB.26, pp. 2-4.

55 A/Conf.13/C.4/L.36.

56 A/Conf.13/C.4/SK.24, p. 7.

57 Ibid.

58 A/Conf.13/SB.8, pp. 11, 12. Australia had, meanwhile, come to regard the phrase as superfluous.

59 The words “Crustacea a n d “ were rejected on roll call by a vote of 22 in favor, 42 against and 6 abstentions. The voting was confused, in part for the reason that it apparently was not clear whether an affirmative vote was a vote in favor of retention or in favor of deletion of these words. Ceylon, Malaya, Norway and the United Kingdom voted “ In favour“; while Australia (the first vote called) and India voted ” A gainst . “ The United States abstained on the vote (ibid., pp. 11-12). The remaining words “ but … swimming species are not included in this definition” were rejected by 14 votes in favor, 43 votes against and 9 abstentions (ibid., p. 12).

60 A/Conf.13/C.4/SE.24, p. 9.

61 A/C0NF.13/SE. 8, p. 12.

62 Pars. 3 and 4 of the ILC Commentary on this article of its 1956 draft read: ” ( 3 ) At its fifth session, the Commission decided after long discussion to retain the term ‘natural resources,’ as distinct from the more limited term ‘mineral resources.' In its previous draft the Commission has only dealt with ‘mineral resources’ and some members proposed adhering to that course. The Commission, however, came to the conclusion that the products of ‘sedentary’ fisheries, in particular, to the extent that they were natural resources permanently attached to the bed of the sea should not be left outside the scope of the regime adopted, and that this aim could be achieved by using the term ‘natural resources.’ It is clearly understood that the rights in question do not cover so-called bottom-fish and other fish which, although living in the sea, occasionally have their habitat at the bottom of the sea or are bred there. ” ( 4 ) At the eighth session it was proposed that the condition of permanent attachment to the seabed should be mentioned in the article itself. At the same time the opinion was expressed that the condition should be made less strict; it would be sufficient that the marine fauna and flora in question should live in constant physical and biological relationship with the seabed and the continental shelf; examination of the scientific aspects of that question should be left to experts. The Commission however decided to leave the text of the article and of the commentary as it stood.” ILC Report, 8th Sess., 1956, loc. cit., p. 42.

63 A/Conf.13/C.4/SR.21, pp. 7-8.

64 A/Conf.13/C.4/SE.22, p. 13.

65 ILC Report, 8th Sess., 1956, loc. cit., p. 43.

66 Final Act, A/Conf.13/L.58; ibid./L.55, p. 2.

67 British proposal (A/Conf.13/C.4/L.27) withdrawn in view of Committee's decision on Art. 67 (A/Conf.13/C.4/SR. 25, p. 7) ; Netherlands proposal (A/Conf.13/ C.4/L.20) withdrawn for similar reason (A/Conf.13/C.4/SR.25, p. 7); Bulgarian proposal (A/Conf.13/C.4/I/.41, military bases or installations), withdrawn prior to voting on Art. 69, to be reintroduced in connection with Art. 71 (A/Conf.13/C.4/ SB.26, p. 11). See note 122 below.

68 A/Conf.13/C.4/L.6.

69 A/Conf.13/C.4/SR.26, p. 5.

70 Ibid., p. 10.

71 Ibid.

72 Ibid., p. 9.

73 Ibid., p. 11.

74 A/Conf.13/C.4/L.14.

75 A/Conf.13/C.4/SR.26, p. 9.

76 Ibid., p. 11.

77 Ibid.

78 A/Conf.13/SE.9, p. 2.

79 Final Act, A/Conf.13/L.58; ibid./L.55, p. 2.

80 ILC Report, 8th Sess., 1956, loc. cit., p. 43.

81 A/Conf.13/C.4/L.27.

82 A/Conf.13/C.4/SB.27, p. 3.

83 Ibid., p. 5.

84 Art. 27 dealt with (1) freedom of navigation, (2) freedom of fishing, (3) freedom to lay submarine cables and pipelines, and (4) freedom to fly over the high seas. ILC Report, 8th sess., 1956, loc. cit., p. 24.

85 A/Conf.13/C.4/L.21.

86 A/Conf.13/C.4/SB.27, p . 9.

87 Words in brackets withdrawn prior to voting.

88 A/Conf.13/C.4/L.34.

89 A/Conf.13/C.4/SE. 27, p. 6.

90 Ibid., p. 9.

91 Ibid.

92 A/Conf.13/SR.9, p. 2.

93 Final Act, A/Conf.13/L.58; Ibid./L.55, pp. 2-3.

94 ILC Report, 8th Sess., 1956, loc. cit., p. 43.

95 A/Conf.13/C.4/L.49. Initially Denmark proposed, in connection with Art. 68, that there be added a new paragraph reading: “Notwithstanding the preceding paragraph, the coastal State may not interfere with fundamental research on the physical characteristics, geology and biology of the seabed and subsoil of the continental shelf outside the territorial sea, provided that such research is carried out with the intention of giving due publicity to the results obtained, and that an opportunity is afforded the coastal State to follow the investigations through qualified observers.” (A/Conf.13/CU/L.10.) Denmark subsequently withdrew this text and proposed instead, in connection with Art. 71, the text set forth above.

96 As distinguished from that in ibid./L.l0.

97 A/Conf.13/C.4/SR. 28, pp. 4-5.

98 A/Conf.13/C.4/SR.30, p. 9. Art. 71, par. 1, as amended by Denmark, was adopted by 41 (U.S.) votes in favor, to none against, with 8 abstentions. Ibid., p. 10.

99 ILC Report, 8th Sess., 1956, loc. tit., p. 43.

100 A/Conf.13/C.4/L.22. This proposal was adopted by 25 (U.S.) votes in favor, to 12 against, with 17 abstentions (A/Conf.13/C.4/SR.30, p. 8). See also Ibid., p. 2.

101 A/Conf.13/C.4/L.15; A/Conf.13/C.4/SR.30, p. 2.

102 The first sentence was adopted by 18 votes in favor, to 14 (U. S.) against, with 23 abstentions (A/Conf. 13/C.4/SR.30, p. 8). The second sentence was rejected by 17 votes in favor, 18(U. S.) against, with 21 abstentions (ibid.) The words “ a nd a i r c r a f t “ were then logically dropped. The third sentence was adopted by 31 votes in favor, 5 against, and 19(TT. S.) abstentions (ibid.).

103 A/Conf.13/C.4/SR.30, p. 8.

104 ILC Report, 8th Sess., 1956, loc. cit., p. 43: A/Conf.13/C.4/L.65, p. 2 (text submitted by Drafting Group).

105 ILC Report, 8th Sess., 1956, loc. cit.

106 1 A/Conf.13/C.4/L.28.

107 A/Conf.13C.4/SR.30, p. 9.

108 A/Conf.13/C.4/L.48.

109 A/Conf.13/C.4/SR.30, p. 9.

110 A/Conf.13/L.12, pp. 7, 11.

111 A/Conf.13/C.4/8B.41, p. 4.

112 A/Conf.13/C.4/L.63 and L.65.

113 A/Conf.13/C.4/L.65, p. 2.

114 A/Conf.13/0.4/8B.41, pp. 5-6.

115 Ibid., p. 6.

116 Ibid.

117 ILC Report, 8th Sess., 1956, loc. cit., p. 43.

118 A/Conf.13/C.4/L.35 The amendment was adopted by a vote of 23 in favor, 19 (U. S.) against, with 11 abstentions (A/Conf.13/C.4/SR.30, p. 9).

119 A/Conf.13/C.4/L.15.

120 A/Conf.13/C.4/SE.30, p. 10.

121 A/Conf.13/C.4/L.56. The text was adopted by 30 (U.S.) votes in favor, 17 against, with 6 abstentions (A/Conf.13/C.4/SR.30, p. 9).

122 First Report of the Drafting Committee (A/Conf.13/L.13, p. 2). A Bulgarian proposal would have added the following new paragraph to Art. 71: “The coastal State shall not use the continental shelf for the purpose of building military bases or installations.” (A/Conf.13/C.4/L.41/Rev.l.) During the course of the discussions, India proposed the following modification to the Bulgarian proposal: “The coastal State shall have the right and the obligation to prevent the continental shelf from being used for the purpose of building military bases or installations.'' (A/Conf.13/C.4/SR.28, p. 8.) India on the same day formally proposed, instead, to add a new paragraph to Art. 71, to read: “The continental shelf adjacent to any coastal State shall not be used by the coastal State or any other State for the purpose of building military bases or installations.“ (A/Conf.13/C.4/L.57.) Thereupon Bulgaria withdrew her proposal in favor of the latter Indian proposal (A/Conf.13/C.4/SR.29, pp. 2, 6). The Indian proposal on roll-call vote was rejected by 31 (U. S.) votes against, to 18 in favor, with 6 abstentions (ibid./SR.Z0, p. 10.). A Bulgarian proposal prohibiting use of the continental shelf for the purpose of building military bases or any installations directed against other states, had also been introduced and later dropped in connection with Art. 69 of the LLC draft (A/Conf.13/C.4/L.41). See note 67 above.

123 A/Conf.13/SR.9, p. 2.

124 Ibid.

125 ibid.

126 Ibid.

127 Ibid.

128 Ibid.

129 Ibid.

130 Ibid

131 Final Act, A/Conf.13/L.58; ibid./Jj.55, p. 3. I t will be recalled that at the invitation of Professor François, Special Rapporteur of the ILC on the “Regime of the Territorial Sea,” technical experts were invited to examine, in their personal capacity, certain questions of a technical nature raised during the discussion in the ILC of the subject of boundaries. Accordingly, Professor L. E. Q. Asplund, Geographic Survey Department, Stockholm; Mr. S. Whittemore Boggs, Special Adviser on Geography, Department of State, Washington, D. C; Mr. P. E. V. Couillault, Ingenieur en Chef du Service Central Hydrographique, Paris; Commander R. H. Kennedy (Retd.), Hydrographic Department, Admiralty, London, accompanied by Mr. R. C. Shawyer, Administrative Officer, Admiralty, London; and Vice Admiral A. S. Pinke (Retd.), Royal Netherlands Navy, The Hague, met at The Hague from April 14 to 16, 1953, to consider these matters. A questionnaire, drawn up by the Special Rapporteur, was submitted to the Committee of Experts, whose report was drafted by Mr. C. W. van Santen, assistant juridical counsel of the Netherlands Minister of Foreign Affairs (A/CN.4/61, Add. 1, May 18, 1953). Question VI read: “How should the international boundary be drawn between two countries, the coasts of which are opposite each other at a distance of less than 2 T miles To what extent have islands and shallow waters to be accounted f or “ To this, the Committee of Experts replied: “An international boundary between countries the coasts of which are opposite each other at a distance of less than 2 T miles should as a general rule be the median line, every point of which is equidistant from the base-lines of the States concerned. Unless otherwise agreed between the adjacent States, all islands should be taken into consideration in drawing the median line. Likewise, drying rocks and shoals within T miles of only one State should be taken into account, but similar elevations of undetermined sovereignty, that are within T miles of both States, should be disregarded in laying down the median line. There may, however, be special reasons, such as navigation and fishing rights, which may divert the boundary from the median line. The line should be laid down on charts of the largest scale available, especially if any part of the body of water is narrow and relatively tortuous.” (Ibid., Annex, p. 6.) Question VII submitted to the Committee of Experts read: “How Should the (lateral) boundary line be drawn through the adjoining territorial sea of two adjacent States? Should this be done ” A . by continuing the land frontier ” B. by a perpendicular line on the coast at the intersection of the land frontier and the coastline ” C . by a line drawn vertically on the general direction of the coastline ” D . by a median line If so, how should this line be drawn To what extent should islands, shallow waters and navigation channels be accounted for “ The Committee of Experts replied: ” 1 . After thoroughly discussing different methods the Committee decided that the (lateral) boundary through the territorial sea—if not already fixed otherwise—should be drawn according to the principle of equidistance from the respective coastlines. ” 2 . In a number of cases this may not lead to an equitable solution, which should be then arrived at by negotiation.” (A/CN.4/61/Add. 1, May 18, 1953, Annex, pp. 6-7.) Finally, the Committee of Experts also made the following further “REMAKE REGARDING THE ANSWERS TO VI AND VII“: “The Committee considered it important to find a formula for drawing the international boundaries in the territorial waters of States, which could also be used for the delimitation of the respective continental shelves of two States bordering the same continental shelf.” (Ibid., p. 7.) Accordingly, Art. 6 (formerly Art. 72 of the ILC draft), pars. 1 and 2, is in harmony with the Report of the Committee of Experts. In this connection, see Arts. 12 and 14 of the ILC draft relating to delimitation of the Territorial Sea (ILC Report, 8th Sess., 1956, loc. cit., pp. 17 and 18). Art. 12 of the Convention on the Territorial Sea and the Contiguous Zone, also approved at the Geneva Conference on the Law of the Sea (Final Act, A/Conf.13/L.58; t«2./L.52, p. 5) reads: ” 1 . “Where the coasts of two States are opposite or adjacent to each other, neither of the two States is entitled, failing agreement between them to the contrary, to extend its territorial sea beyond the median line every point of which is equidistant from the nearest points on the baselines from which the breadth of the territorial seas of each of the two States is measured. The provisions of this paragraph shall not apply, however, where it is necessary by reason of historic title or other special circumstances to delimit the territorial seas of the two States in a way which is at variance with this provision. ” 2 . The line of delimitation between the territorial seas of two States lying opposite to each other or adjacent to each other shall be marked on large-scale charts officially recognized by the coastal States.“

132 Par. 1 describes the boundary of the continental shelf between states whose coasts are opposite each other, in absence of agreement or special circumstances, as a “median” line. Par. 2 does not assign a name to the line described therein. In the case of the line under par. 2, it is a lateral line, that is, a line extending seaward from the baselines of adjacent states, while in the case of the line to be established under par. 1, it is to be a “median” line, that is, a line drawn between the states in such a way that every point along it is equidistant from the nearest points of the baselines of the two states.

133 A/Conf./13/C.4/SR.32, p. 2. See also the paper prepared by Commander Kennedy entitled “Brief Remarks on Median Lines and Lines of Equidistance, and on the Methods Used in Their Construction,” distributed at the Conference by the Delegation of the United Kingdom, April 2, 1958.

134 ILC Report, 8th Sess., 1956, loc. cit., p. 44.

135 A/Conf.13/C.4/L.28, and /L.28/Rev. 1.

136 A/Conf.13/C.4/L.23; A/Conf.13/C.4/SE.33, p. 6. The vote on the U.K.- Netherlands joint amendment (after the deletion of “ or other submarine areas “ ) , was 29(U. S.) in favor, 17 against, and 8 abstentions (par. 1) ; and 29(IT. 8.) votes in favor, 16 against, and 9 abstentions (par. 2). Ibid., pp. 6-7.

137 A/Conf.13/C.4/L.42.

138 A/Conf.13/C.4/SE.33, p. 6.

139 A/Conf.13/C.4/L.16 and/Add.l.

140 A/Conf.13/C.4/SE.33, p. 6.

141 A/Conf.13/C.4/L.25/Rev.l.

142 This proposal was rejected by 3 votes in favor, 31 (U.S.) against, and 18 abstentions. A/Conf.13/C.4/SE.33, p. 6.

143 A/Conf.13/C.4/L.60.

144 A/Conf.13/C.4/SE.33, p. 6. The vote was 6 in favor, 27 (U.S.) against, and 21 abstentions.

145 Ibid., p. 7.

146 Ibid., p. 8.

147 A/Conf.13/C.4/L.28 and L.28/Rev. 1.

148 A/Conf.13/C.4/SE.33, p. 6.

149 A/Conf.13/C.4/L.28.

150 A/Conf.13/C.4/SR.32, p. 8.

151 A/Conf.13/C.4/L.28/Rev. 1.

152 A/Conf.13/C.4/SR.33, p. 6.

153 A/Conf.13/C.4/SR.32, p. 8.

154 A/Conf.13/C.4/SR.33, p. 7.

155 A/Conf.13/C.4/L.60.

156 A/Conf.13/C.4/8E.33, p. 7. The vote was 2 votes in favor, 33 (XJ. S.) against, and 21 abstentions.

157 Ibid., p. 8.

158 Ibid.

159 Ibid.

160 A/Conf.13/SK.9, p. 3.

161 A/Conf.13/L.15.

162 A/Conf.13/SR. 9, p. 3.

163 Ibid.

164 Final Act, A/Conf.13/L.58; Ibid./L.55, p. 4.

165 A/Conf.13/C.4/L.44. The proposal as put forward by the U.K. began with the words: “The provisions of paragraph 1 of this Article shall not prejudice … “ Prior to the vote on this proposal in Committee IV, Mr. Jhirad of India proposed that the paragraph should begin with the words: ‘ ‘ The provisions of these articles shall not prejudice … “ The United Kingdom representative accepted the proposal. The vote on the proposal as amended was 25 votes (U.S.) in favor, 19 against, and 23 abstentions (A/Conf.13/C.4/SR. 24, p. 8).

166 A/Conf.13/C.4/L.65, p. 3; A/Conf.13/C.4/SR.41, p. 7.

167 A/Conf.13/L.13; A/Conf.13/L.12, Annex II, p. 3.

168 A/Conf.13/8E.9, p. 3.

169 ILC Report, 8th Sess., 1956, loc. cit., pp. 44-45.

170 A/Conf.13/C.4/L.51; A/Conf.13/C.4/8E.35, p. 8.

171 A/Conf.13/C.4/l,.59; A/Conf.13/C.4/SB.35, p. 11.

172 A/Conf.13/C.4/L.62.

173 A/Conf.13/C.4/L.61.

174 A/Conf.13/C.4/SB.35, p. 11. The Argentine amendment was rejected by 30 (U.S.) votes to 25, with 5 abstentions. The Venezuelan (original U.S.S.B. proposal) amendment was rejected by 29(U.S.) votes to 26, with 6 abstentions. The Netherlands' first proposal was rejected by 29 (U.S.) votes to 25, with 7 abstentions. The Netherlands' second proposal was rejected by 44 (U.S.) votes to 3, with 13 abstentions. The Indian amendment was rejected by 25 (U.S.) votes to 11, with 25 abstentions. Ibid. For the vote on the ILC text, see ibid., p. 12.

175 A/Conf.13/C.4/8B.34, pp. 5-6.

176 A/Conf.13/SB.9, pp. 3-4. See also A/Conf.13/SB.13.

177 The separate Protocol had its origin in Swiss initiative, presented in the form of a letter to the President of the Conference (A/Conf.13/BUB/L.3; A/Conf.13/L.40). The Optional Protocol of Signature, as amended, was adopted on April 26, 1958, by 52 (U.S.) votes in favor, none opposed, and 13 abstentions (A/Conf.13/SB.17, p. 12). For the text of the Protocol as adopted, see Final Act, A/Conf.13/L.58, ibid./L.57, reprinted below, p. 862.

178 FOT the text, as adopted by the Conference, of the Convention on Fishing and Conservation of the Living Resources of the High Seas, considered by Committee III, see Final Act, A/Conf.13/L.58, ibid./L.54, below, p. 851. The substantive articles of that Convention referred to in the Optional Protocol are Arts. 4-8, while the procedural articles are Arts. 9-12 of that Convention.

179 On April 26, 1958, at the 17th Plenary Session, following the adoption of the Optional Protocol of Signature Concerning the Compulsory Settlement of Disputes, Art. 74 was finally put to the vote of the Conference, in order to remove all doubts as to its status, with the result that it failed to receive the required two-thirds majority, the vote being 38 votes in favor, 20 against, and 7 abstentions (U.S.) (A/Conf.13/SR.17, p. 12).

180 A/Conf.13/C.4/SE.36, p. 3.

181 See A/Conf.13/C.4/SE.37 and 38.

182 A/Conf.13/C.4/SE.38, pp. 2, 6-7. The vote was 39(U.S.) in favor, and 6 against, and 7 abstentions.

183 A/Conf.13/SE.8, p. 5.

184 Ibid., p. 2.

185 Ibid., pp. 2-5.

186 Ibid.

187 Ibid., p. 5.

188 A/Conf.13/L.7.

189 A/Conf.13/C.4/SB.40, pp. 5-6.

190 Ibid., p. 6. The voting took place at a late night session amidst some confusion.

191 A/Conf.13/L.16. Subject to re-wording in the Drafting Committee the proposal was adopted by 40 (U.S.) votes in favor, 4 against, and 19 abstentions (A/Conf.13/ SE.9, p. 11).

192 A/Conf.13/SE.9, p. 9.

193 A/Conf.13/L.32, p. 2; A/Conf. 13/SE.18, p. 2.

194 Ibid., p. 3.

195 A/Conf.13/L.55, p. 4.

196 A/Conf.13/C.4/SR.40, pp. 8-9 (rejected by 5 votes in favor, 17 (U.S.) against, with 23 abstentions.)

197 Ibid., p. 8.

198 A/Conf.13/C.4/SB.41, pp. 2-3; ibid./SR.42, p. 2; A/Conf.13/L.12, p. 13.

199 A/Conf.13/SE.9, pp. 12-14.

200 Sixth Report of Drafting Committee, A/Conf.13/L.32, p. 3.

201 A/Conf.13/SR.18, pp. 3-6. 203 Art. 10.

202 Art. 8.

203 Art. 10

204 Art. 11, par. 1.

205 Art. 13, par. 1. The U.N. General Assembly is to decide upon the steps, if any, to be taken on the request. Art. 13, par. 2.

206 Art. 14.

207 Art. 15.

208 A/Conf.13/8E.18, p. 6.

209 Ibid.

210 Ibid

211 Information as of October 30, 1958. Countries signing at Geneva: Argentina, Canada, China, Colombia, Costa Rica, Cuba, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Ghana, Guatemala, Haiti, Iceland, Israel, Nepal, Thailand, Uruguay, and Yugoslavia. Subsequent signatories: Afghanistan, Australia, Bolivia, Ceylon, Finland, German Federal Republic, Indonesia, Iran (with reservations), Ireland, Lebanon, Liberia, New Zealand, Panama, Portugal, Switzerland, Tunisia, the United Kingdom, the United States, and Venezuela.