648 
mittee believes that this assumption of a need to revise the Shelf Convention is 
unwarranted in terms of projected technological progress in offshore mineral 
exploitation. Reasonably interpreted, the Convention definition of the shelf 
extends, and limits, coastal control to adjacent marine regions of sufficient extent 
that the outer limit of control will not be reached fer a very long time. 
“As a general rule, the limit of adjacency may reasonably be regarded as coin- 
ciding with the foot of the submerged portion of the continental land mass. There 
is strong support for this view in the drafting history of the Convention, although 
other interpretations have been advanced.” 
Our own report, and that of the Committee on Deep Sea Mineral Resources of 
the American Branch of the International Law Association, joined in substan- 
tially identical Conclusions and Recommendations. 
The Commission’s report does not take specific cognizance of the reports of 
these Bar groups, but refers exclusively to the NPC report. 
The NPC 1968 Interim Report took the position that under the Convention’s 
adjacency and exploitability criteria, coastal nations are vested with exclusive 
sovereign rights over the natural resources of the submerged continental land 
mass seaward to the point where the submerged continent meets the deep ocean 
floor, including the geological continental shelf, continental borderland, conti- 
nental slope, and at least the landward portions of the continental rise. It 
further proposed that this interpretation of the Convention be proclaimed through 
unilateral declarations by the United States and other coastal nations as their 
understanding of the text. A more precisely defined boundary based on this 
principle could be determined later as required. 
The Commission Report rejects the 1968 NPC position on both legal and 
policy grounds. With respect to the NPC’s suggested reading of the Convention, 
the Report observes (p. 144) : 
“On the basis of the studies of its International Panel, the Commission con- 
cludes that the NPC position is not warranted either by the language of the 
definition of the ‘continental shelf’ or its history.” 
5 Subsequent to the Commission Report, the NPC in March 1969 published its final re- 
port, entitled, ‘“Petroleum Resources under the Ocean Floor.” On this point the text of the 
final NPC report said (pp. 56—57.) : 
“For the purpose of determining the outer limit of coastal-nation jurisdiction, the defi- 
nition of the ‘continental shelf’ as set forth in Article 1 of the Convention is controlling. 
The key words in this definition, in turn, are: 
“1. ‘Submarine areas,’ i.e., not just the continental shelf in its strict geomorphic sense, 
pot ee, submarine areas lying off the coast and otherwise meeting the requirements of 
rticle 1; 
“2. ‘Adjacent to the coast,’ i.e., not to mid-ocean, but in sufficient proximity or appur- 
tenance to the coast to qualify as ‘adjacent.’ Adjacency is, of course, a relative concept and 
what is proximate or appurtenant must be determined in the context of the vast expanses 
of the oceanic submarine areas of the world and not in a narrow sense ; 
“3. ‘To a depth of 200 metres,’ i.e., this far presently and unconditionally, without regard 
to the existence of a capability to exploit ; 
“4. “Or beyond that limit, to where the depth of the superjacent waters admits of the 
exploitation of the natural resources of the said areas,’ i.e., as much farther beyond the 200 
meters depth, within the outer limit of adjacency, as developing technology can be shown 
at any particular time to make such exploitation possible. In other words, this is not a 
static limit, conditioned upon exploitability as of a specific point in time, but is an elastic 
one, expanding with developments in technology. 
“Tt is thus apparent as noted in point 3 immediately above that the coastal nations 
have (a) a present and unconditional jurisdiction to the depth of 200 meters without 
regard to the existence of a capability to exploit, and (b) a further jurisdiction over the 
submarine areas specified in point 4 above whenever developing technology admits of the 
exploitation of said areas. Article 2, par. 2, of the Convention preserves the exclusive rights 
of the coastal nations throughout whatever period of time is needed to permit the art of 
exploitation to achieve its ultimate depth capability within the limits of adjacency. As 
seems apparent, in light of technological advances to date, there wll be an eventual capa- 
bility to exploit any submarine area. Thus the test of adjacency alone determines the ulti- 
mate limit of national jurisdiction of coastal nations under Article 1 of the Convention 
and hence it is this test that fixes the boundary between national and international 
jurisdiction. 
“Accordingly, it is the outer limit of adjacency which will now be considered. 
“When the four key phrases, which have been analyzed above,.are considered in light of 
the deliberations that led to their inclusion in the definition of the term ‘continental shelf’ 
in Article 1 of the Convention, it can reasonably be concluded that the coastal nations’ 
exclusive jurisdiction over the natural resources of the seabed and subsoil was intended to, 
and does, encompass in general, the continental mass seaward to where the submerged 
portion of that mass meets the abyssal ocean floor (including the continental shelf, con- 
tinental borderland, continental slope, and at least the landward portion of the continental 
rise overapping the slope). 
“In addition, it is clear that in particular locales where the continent drops off abruptly 
from near the coastline to the abyssal ocean floor, it was intended that this exclusive juris- 
diction should include an area of that floor ‘adjacent to the continent.’ ” 
