Norway's Continental Shelf and the Boundary Question on the Seabed
| Date | 01 March 1974 |
| Published date | 01 March 1974 |
| Author | Finn Sollie |
| DOI | 10.1177/001083677400900113 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
Norway’s Continental Shelf and the Boundary Question
on the Seabed
FINN SOLLIE
One of the most important problems that should be solved at the UN Conference on
the Law of the Sea, is that of determining the exact boundary between the continental
shelf, where coastal states have exclusive rights of exploration and exploitation of
resources, and the deep seabed, which is to be an international area and the common
heritage of mankind.
With her long coastline and the generally very broad continental shelf lying off it,
Norway is one of the countries which, both relatively and absolutely, have the greatest
interest attached to their national seabed territories. However, the Norwegian con-
tinental shelf differs rather significantly from the ’international norm’. Thus, large
parts of the Norwegian shelf lie at greater depths than is normal off other countries.
Also, the Norwegian shelf is exceptionally broad, especially in the north, where it has
a width of more than 1,000 kilometers from the coast of Finnmark to the edge fronting
the deep waters of the Arctic Ocean. Because of these extreme conditions, Norway
could be adversely affected if an international agreement for a fixed boundary to the
extent of the dominion of the coastal state over the seabed were to be based on global
averages. Such an outcome to the negotiations taking place within the framework of
the UN Conference on the Law of the Sea could be especially disadvantageous on the
Norwegian shelf, where a narrowly-drawn boundary could, at worst, lead to a partition
of the shelf between Norway and Svalbard (Spitsbergen). With the international agree-
ment which applies to the Svalbard islands, and the special security policy situation
which exists in the northern region, such a partition would be most unfortunate for
Norway. The Norwegian ’problem’ in the seabed issue arises because Norway nego-
tiates from a position marked by extreme natural conditions and against the back-
ground of a security policy situation which makes the country especially dependent on
a favorable outcome.
1. THE PROBLEM OF THE SEABED
tion when used in the text of an agree-
ment under international law. The fol-
By the Convention on the Continental
lowing definition was therefore given in
Shelf of 1958, it was laid down that
Article 1 of the Convention:
the coastal State exercises over the con-
For the purpose of these articles, the
tinental shelf sovereign rights for the
term ’continental shelf’ is used as refer-
purpose of exploring it and exploiting
ring (a) to the seabed and subsoil of the
its natural resources. (Art. 2, 1)
submarine areas adjacent to the coast
but outside the area of the territorial
The primary aim of the Continental
sea, to a depth of 200 meters or, beyond
Shelf Convention was to affirm that the
that limit, to where the depth of the
coastal states had sole rights to explora-
superjacent waters admits of the ex-
tion and exploitation on the shallow shelf
ploitation of the natural resources of
plateau that stretches out from the coast
the said areas; (b) to the seabed and
to the point where the seabed drops away
subsoil of similar submarine areas ad-
steeply towards the ocean basin.
jacent to the coasts of islands.
’The continental shelf’, however, is a
concept which, even though it possesses a
In other words, the concept of the shelf
particular signification and a clear
in international law is defined in terms
meaning for both specialists and laymen,
of a 200 meter boundary, which is then
nevertheless calls for more precise defini-
modified by a criterion of exploitation.
102
The depth boundary of 200 meters is
II. BOUNDARY ALTERNATIVES
somewhat greater than the average sea
ON THE SEABED
depth over the continental shelf (about
No principle exists which can provide an
130 meters), but conditions vary quite
ideal boundary to the dominion of the
considerably, and off Norway, in many
coastal states over the seabed, and the
places the depth of the shelf is some 500
difficulty of reaching agreement on a de-
meters. The criterion of exploitation pro-
finitive
vides the modification
boundary between national sea-
to the definition
bed and international ocean floor is due
of the shelf in international law which is
to the fact that different
needed
principles and
so that also deeper-lying parts of
criteria can
the natural shelf will
provide the basis for a solu-
come under the
tion. The most
dominion of the coastal state. This criteri-
important alternative solu-
tions are (a) a ’geological’ boundary de-
on, however, also creates a situation in
termined
which
by the characteristics of the sea-
new technical advances could result
bed,
in
(b) a ’depth’ boundary where the
a gradual extension of the dominion of
the coastal
depth of the sea would be the decisive
states until it reached the
factor, (c) a ’breadth’ boundary which
ocean floor. It is already possible to bring
would be at a fixed distance from the
minerals up from depths of about 5,000
coast-line, and (d) composite solutions
meters. If the criterion of exploitation
which would combine elements from the
alone were to determine the boundary to
other alternatives.
the dominion of the coastal states over the
seabed, the entire ocean floor would, be-
1.
fore long, be divided between the world’s
Geological Boundary
coastal states.
A major argument justifying the right of
This would be in conflict with the view
the coastal state to dominion over the
that the floor of the ocean beyond the
seabed off its coast is based on the fact
shallow shelf regions must be considered
that the continental shelf is a natural ex-
a ’common heritage of mankind’ which
tension of the continental land mass.
cannot be placed under the dominion of
Geologically, the shelf forms part of the
individual states. In 1970, the UN’s 25th
continent and, even though it varies
General Assembly adopted a declaration
greatly in width, it has a characteristic
of principle which states inter alia that
profile: the shelf stretches from the coast
there exists a region on the ocean floor
as a gently sloping plateau out to a point
outside national jurisdiction ’the exact
(edge) where the bottom drops down a steep
boundaries of which it remains to deter-
slope then gradually flattens out in an
mine’. In order to define the boundary for
incline towards the level floor of the ocean.
the territory which lies outside national
The whole shelf complex (the continental
jurisdiction, it is necessary to define, di-
margin) is a continuous formation, geolog-
rectly or indirectly, the limits to how far
ically quite distinct from the ocean floor.
out - or down - the boundary to the
There are two points on this profile which
coastal state’s dominion extends. An im-
could, separately, form the basis for a
portant part of the negotiations in connec-
’natural’ boundary between national and
tion with the 3rd UN Conference on the
international territory. One is the shallow
Law of the Sea concerns the question of
edge of the shelf, which marks the outer
a more precise statement on boundaries
limits of the shelf plateau, and the other
than that at present found in the Con-
is the deep-lying point at which the geo-
tinental Shelf Convention.
logically different ocean floor begins. The
difference in levels here is considerable,
in that the edge normally lies at a depth
of less than 200 meters, while the ocean
floor lies at between 3,000-4,000 meters.
103
Both alternatives can be said to be solu-
principle which are raised against the
tions ’given’ by nature, in that they are
geological boundary can thus also be
determined by the natural form and char-
levelled against the depth boundary.
acteristics of the seabed.
The advantage of the depth boundary
While the depth profile of the continen-
is primarily that it is precise and simple,
tal shelf is relatively uniform off all
has a fixed dimension, and could be
coasts, its width, by contrast, varies very
easier to localize than would be the case
greatly, from as little as a few hundred
with a geological boundary. The latter
meters off the Pacific coast of South
follows a contour on the seabed that is
America to many hundreds of kilometers
not equally sharply defined in all in-
in other places. In the Barents Sea the
stances and which varies in depth (the
shelf has a breadth of as much as 1,500
depth of the shelf edge varies from under
kilometers. With a boundary based on
100 to over 600 meters).
geological considerations, therefore, some
On the other hand, a depth boundary
coastal states would not acquire dominion
could produce a capricious result if it was
over seabed beyond their territorial waters,
so shallow that it excluded important areas
while others would acquire enormous
from the national territory on the seabed.
areas. A
geologically-determined boundary
For example, a fixed boundary at 200
would, moreover, lie at a fluctuating dis-
meters, which is adequate for most other
tance from the coast and would not co-
countries, would result in large parts of
incide with other boundaries, such as, for
the Norwegian shelf lying outside the
instance, the fishery limits, which relate
boundary. The USA, for example, with a
to the rights of the coastal states over the
shelf which is nowhere deeper than 200
waters off
f their coast. Nobody can do
meters, could accordingly support pro-
anything about the fact that the width of
posals for a fixed boundary at 200 meters.
the shelf varies off different coasts, but
A proposal of this nature...
To continue reading
Request your trial