452 



a few outlandish extensions, hundreds of miles into the sea floor, with 

 exclusive jurisdictions over what is below it, in it. on it, and above it. 



Second, the Convention ignored the physical characteristics of the 

 continental shelf so that its definition amounted to a legal fiction. The 

 exclusive use of the 100-fathom (200-meter) isobath is arbitrary, sci- 

 entifically unfounded, and inequitable in the allocation of resource's 

 from the sea floor. It was wise to divorce the superjacent waters from 

 the considerations of seabed jurisdiction, but it was unwise to ignore 

 the water surface completely. The nations having a narrow shelf ar- 

 rive at the 100-fathom isobath almost within eye view from their 

 shorelines. The addition of a lateral extent on the water surface, a 

 specified distance in miles from shore, would have been a fair alterna- 

 tive to the 100-fathom isobath. But the Convention left seaward limits 

 undefined, and provided no compensation for countries without con- 

 tinental shelves. Conversely, nations with very shallow continental 

 shelves were given jurisdiction that extended hundred of miles off- 

 shore before reaching the 100-fathom isobath. The Persian Gulf, for 

 example, is in its entirety one continental shelf, according to the defini- 

 tion of the Convention, and the Arctic shelf off Siberia is close to 700 

 miles in width. 



Third, the Convention contained a delinquent ambiguity inherent 

 in the clause appended to the definition of the continental shelf. Arti- 

 cle 1 (a) defined the shelf as reaching to a depth of 200 meters "* * * or, 

 beyond that limit, to where the depth of the superjacent waters ad- 

 mits of the exploitation of the natural resources of the said areas * * *." 



The timing of the Truman Proclamation coincided with the increas- 

 ing development in technological capabilities and the feasibility of ex- 

 ploiting the sea floor. It served to point up a significant aspect in the 

 development of national and international law for the sea — the direct 

 and inevitable correlation between the evolution of law and the devel- 

 opment in technology in response to the need for exploitation. 



In an early draft of the report of the International Law Commis- 

 sion, a similar correlation between the legal definition and tech- 

 nological feasibility was attempted. The principle of depth-by-ex- 

 ploitability, however, would have permitted countries to claim, as 

 continental shelf, lands far beyond the geological shelf. In 1053 the 

 International Law Commission rejected this concept and adopted the 

 200-meter limit and the exploitability clause, whence evolved the defi- 

 nition adopted by the Geneva Convention. Even then, the state of the 

 art in offshore drilling had exceeded twice the depth of 200 meters. 



The exploitability clause can be interpreted in numerous ways, the. 

 simplest of which is that the extent of the continental shelf limit is 

 determined by the capability of exploiting its seabed and subsoil. In 

 other words, one can claim what one can reach. 



In the United States, for example, the exploitability clause was 

 construed as authorization under the language of the Convention. It 

 has facilitated the leasing of offshore areas far in excess of the 200- 

 meter depth off California, and a.s far from shore as 115 miles off 

 Louisiana. Together with the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act 

 of 1953, the Geneva Convention also permitted the United States to 



