576 
The articles of the convention which are pertinent to today’s discus- 
sion are articles 1, 2, and 3. 
Article 1 defines the term “continental shelf” as referring “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”—and 
here is the crucial point—“‘or beyond that limit, to where the depth of 
the superjacent waters admits of the exploitation of the natural re- 
sources of the said areas.’ 
Article 2 of the convention states in section 1, paragraph No. 1, that 
“the coastal State exercises over the continental shelf sovereign rights 
for the purpose of exploring it and exploiting its natural resources.’ 
Paragraph 2 of that article is frequently overlooked. It says: 
The rights referred to in paragraph 1 of this article are exclusive in the sense 
that if the coastal State does not explore the continental shelf or exploit its 
natural resources, no one may undertake these activities, or make a claim to the 
continental shelf, without the express consent of the coastal State. 
Article 2 goes on in paragraph 3 to say : 
The rights of the coastal State do not depend on occupation, effective or 
notional, or on any express proclamation. 
Article 3 stipulates that : 
The rights of the coastal State over the continental shelf do not affect the 
legal status of the superjacent waters as high seas, or that of the air apace: above 
those waters. 
On this subject, that is to say, the geographic extent and the char- 
acter of the jurisdiction of the coastal nation, the House of Delegates 
of the American Bar Association in 1968 adopted a resolution, its full 
text is annexed. It recommends: 
That the United States consult with other parties to the 1958 Continental Shelf 
Convention with a view to establishing, through the issuance of parallel declara- 
tions or by other means, an agreed interpretation of the definition of the boundary 
between the area of exclusive sovereign rights with respect to natural resources 
of the seabed and subsoil and the deep ocean floor beyond the limits of national 
jurisdiction. 
The House of Delegates’ resolution went on to recommend: 
That within the area of exclusive sovereign rights adjacent to the United 
States, the interests of the United States in the natural resources of the sub- 
marine areas be protected to the full extent permitted by the 1958 Convention 
on the Continental Shelf. 
The supporting report of the sections that underlay this resolution, 
and was before the house of delegates when it adopted it, said this: 
The Convention’s definition of the seaward extent of the coastal State’s juris- 
diction has been subjected to a number of interpretations. 
Some argue that the factor of exploitability would carry the coastal nation’s 
exclusive mineral jurisdiction to mid-ocean. We disagree. Others argue that it 
should be restricted to waters as shallow as 200 meters or 12 miles from shore. 
We disagree with this, too. 
The better view, in our opinion, is that the “exploitability” factor of the Con- 
vention is limited by the element of “adjacency.” The exclusive sovereign rights 
of the coastal nations to the exploration and exploitation of the natural resources 
of the seabed and subsoil encompass “the submarine areas adjacent to the coast 
but outside the area of the territorial sea.’”’ According to this view, therefore, the 
exclusive sovereign rights of the coastal nations with respect to the seabed min- 
erals now embrace the submerged land mass of the adjacent continent down to 
its junction with the deep ocean floor, irrespective of depth. 
