649 
It then goes on (p. 144) to state the Commission’s judgment that the NPC 
proposal would be ‘contrary to the best interests of the United States.” 
The differences of opinion which currently exist over the proper limit of the 
continental shelf are well brought out by this conflict between the position of 
the Commission and the positions taken in the 1968 reports of the A.B.A. sec- 
tions, the I.L.A. Committee, and NPC. 
The issue is controversial and complex. Because of its importance, we think 
it may be informative to review (in necessarily abbreviated form) some of the 
considerations advanced by the opposing sides and then to indicate the bases 
of our position. These considerations may be conveniently divided into those 
relating to the construction of the present Convention language, those involving 
the question of what is desirable policy, and those concerning the manner in 
which a more precise definition of the treaty shelf might be obtained. 
4. Construction of the convention text 
It is common ground between the Commission, the positions of the Bar groups, 
and the NPC positions that the language of the Shelf Convention does not sup- 
port the so-called “national lake” concept—that a coastal state may extend its 
claims indefinitely over the deep-sea floor until it reaches some mid-ocean median 
line with another state. The differences between them relate to the proper 
location of a seaward limit for national jurisdiction which is acknowledged to 
exist.® 
One body of opinion takes the view that the shelf definition in Article 1 of the 
1958 Convention properly interpreted means that the limit of adjacency may be 
regarded as coinciding with the foot of the submerged portion of the continental 
land mass. Evidence from the drafting history is cited in support of this interpre- 
tation, with particular emphasis being placed on the conclusions of the Inter- 
American Conference at Ciudad Trujillo in 1956. At that conference a resolution 
was adopted specifically affirming the exclusive appurtenance to the coastal state 
of 
“The continental shelf, continental and insular terrace, or other submarine 
areas, adjacent to the coastal state . . . to'a depth of 200 meters, or, beyond that 
limit, to where the depth of the superjacent waters admits of the exploitation of 
the natural resources .. .’”7 
Since this resolution was an important precursor of the Shelf Convention, it is 
said that Article 1 of the Convention should be read as embracing the same con- 
cept even though Article 1 omits all reference to the “continental terrace.” 8 
Those adhering to this view cite the explanation given to the Senate by the 
Chairman of the U.S. delegation which participated in the Geneva Convention 
conferences : 
“ “The clause which protects the right to utilize advances in technology at 
greater depths beneath the oceans was supported by the United States and was 
in keeping with the Inter-American conclusions at Ciudad Trujillo in 1956. It 
was included in the I.L.C. 1956 draft.’ ” 9 
Reliance is also placed on the recent holding by the International Court of 
Justice in the North Sea Continental Shelf Cases that under the continental 
shelf doctrine as it exists in customary law a coastal state is entitled to “all 
those parts of the continental shelf that constitute a natural prolongation of its 
land territory into and under the sea.” *° [Emphasis supplied. ] 
Opposed to this view is a second body of opinion, exemplified in the Reports 
of the Commission and of its International Panel, that the drafting history of the 
Convention does not support this broad interpretation. This group relies, inter 
alia, on the facts that no express reference was made in Article 1 to the con- 
tinental Terrace or slope, that an effort to include such a reference was voted 
down in the Conference, and that the drafters retained throughout the basic term 
“continental shelf.” 
®It has also become clear in the UN debates on this subject that there is a wide con- 
sensus favoring the principle that there is some such limit of coastal state jurisdiction 
74 Whiteman, Digest of International Law, 836-837. The United States voted for the 
resolution, which was adopted unanimously. 
8 The full arguments about the drafting history advanced by the proponents of this view 
are set forth in detail in the 1968 and 1969 NPC Reports. A contrary view is expressed in 
Oxman, “The Preparation of Article 1 of the Convention on the Continental Shelf’ (a 
study prepared for the Marine Science Commission). 7s 
® Hearings before the Committee on Foreign Relations of the U.S. Senate on Conventions 
on the Law of the Sea, 86th Cong., 2d Sess., Jan. 1960, p. 108—09. : 
10 Judgment of February 20, 1969. I.C.J. Reports, 1969, p. 3, at 53; 8 International Legal 
Materials 340, at 384 (1969). 
