625 
2. 
In 1951 the International Law Commission, which had been estab- 
lished by the Assembly of the United Nations to promote the development 
and codification of international law, submitted a report on the high seas 
after its third session. This 1951 report recommended that the coastal 
nations should have control and jurisdiction over the natural resources of 
a "continental sheif, '' defined as referring to 
". , . the seabed and subsoil of the submarine areas contiguous 
to the coast, but outside the area of territorial waters, where 
the depth of the superjacent waters admits of the exploitation of 
the natural resources of the seabed and subsoil,"' 3/ 
3. 
The same Commission, in 1953, following its fifth session, produced 
another report. In this 1953 report the Commission reversed itself, and 
defined coastal jurisdiction solely in terms of water depth, using 200 metres 
as the outside limit, as follows: 
".. . the seabed and subsoil of the submarine areas contiguous 
to the coast, but outside the area of the territorial sea, to a depth 
of two hundred metres. ua 
The exploitability criterion was dropped. 
oft 
This new limitation proved unacceptable to the Organization of 
American States. 
In March 1956, the 20 American nations convened at Ciudad Trujillo 
to consider the Commission's 1953 draft. These 20 nations were wholly dis- 
satisfied with the International Law Commission's about-face, They unani- 
mously adopted a resolution reciting that: 
"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 
meters, or, beyond that limit, to where the depth of the superjacent 
3/ International Law Commission (ILC) Yearbook (1951), Vol. I, p. 141. 
4/ ILC Yearbook (1953), Vol. Il, p. 212. The Commission's records make 
it clear that the motivation for this action was not the conclusion that the 
coastal nations had no rights beyond the 200 metre depth, but rather that 
there was no urgency for allowing exploitation beyond that depth, and that 
a 200 metre depth limit had a desirable element of certainty. 
