647 
“2. 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. 
“3. The rights of the coastal State over the continental shelf do not depend 
on occupation, effective or notional, or on any express proclamation. 
“4, The natural resources referred to in these articles consist of the mineral 
and other non-living resources of the seabed and subsoil together with living 
organisms belonging to sedentary species, that is to say, organisms which, at the 
harvestable stage, either are immobile on or under the seabed or are unable to 
move except in constant physical contact with the seabed or the subsoil.’ 
2. The Commission’s position 
The Commission’s conclusion (p. 144) is: 
“We do not think that there is any reasonable way to interpret the Conven- 
tion’s definition that would place a precise outer limit on the existing legal ‘con- 
tinental shelf’.” 
Indeed, the Report goes so far as to indicate that the shelf jurisdiction of the 
coastal state “up to the 200-meter isobath is not entirely free of doubt because 
in some parts of the world, the geological continental shelf extends to a depth 
less than 200 meters yet to a distance so far from the coast that at some point, it 
may reasonably be argued, it is no longer ‘adjacent’ to it and, therefore, not 
within the Convention’s definition.” * 
To resolve the problem which it thus finds to exist, the Commission recom- 
mends (p. 145) : 
“That the United States take the initiative to secure international agreement 
on a redefinition of the ‘continental shelf’ for purposes of the Convention on the 
Continental Shelf. The seaward limit of each coastal nation’s ‘continental shelf’ 
should be fixed at the 200-meter isobath, or 50 nautical miles from the baseline 
for measuring the breadth of its territorial sea, whichever alternative gives it 
the greater area for purposes of the Convention.” 
We disagree. The reasons for our view can best be stated after a brief examina- 
tion of various arguments advanced by those who support and those who oppose 
the Commission’s position. 
8. Previous Bar Association reports and the NPC report 
The Commission refers generally to other suggested interpretations of the shelf 
definition contained in the Convention but deems it important (p. 144) to single 
out and differ especially with the Interim Report of the National Petroleum Coun- 
cil (NPC) dated July 9, 1968. 
It would be inappropriate, however, to characterize this as a difference of views 
solely as between the Commission and the National Petroleum Council. 
The Joint Report to the House of Delegates of the Sections of Natural Resources 
Law and International and Comparative Law and the Standing Committee on 
Peace and Law through United Nations (August 1968) said (pp. 8-9) : 
“Mhe Convention’s definition of the seaward extent of the coastal state’s 
jurisdiction 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.’ ” 
The 1968 Interim Report of the Committee on Deep Sea Mineral Resources of 
the American Branch of the International Law Association said (p. IX—X) : 
“For reasons seldom made explicit, some find difficulty with the boundary defi- 
nition in the Convention, particularly in terms of the reach of the exploitability 
criterion in light of the principal of adjacency. ‘Accordingly, a number of alter- 
natives are now being advanced in various quarters for revising the Continental 
Shelf Convention in order to place a firm limitation on coastal control. The Com- 
4It seems clear to us that areas out to a depth of 200 metres, regardless of distance 
from shore, are within the shelf jurisdiction of the coastal state subject to the corresponding 
rights of other states with which the shelf may be shared. 
