692 
Nations convened for its eighth session and, after electing you as Chairman, pro- 
ceeded to consider, among other things, the term to be recommended for inclusion 
in what eventually became the 1958 Geneva Convention on the Continental Shelf. 
The proceedings of this session are set forth in Volume I of the Yearbook of the 
International Law Commission, 1956, and subsequent references will be to the 
pages of that volume. 2 
At the outset of the discussion on the continental shelf, you proposed (p. 181) 
the inclusion of the following language in the convention : 
“Article 1 
“1. As used in these articles, the expression ‘submarine areas’ refers to the 
soil and subsoil of the submarine shelf, continental and insular terrace, or other 
submarine areas, adjacent to the coastal State outside the territorial sea, to a 
depth of 200 metres or, beyond that limit, to where the depth of the superjacent 
waters admits of the exploitation of the natural resources of the said areas. 
“9 Likewise, as used in these articles, the expression ‘natural resources’ refers 
to the mineral riches of the soil and subsoil of the submarine area, as well as to 
the living resources which are permanently attached to the bottom. 
“3 In the other articles of the draft, the expression ‘submarine areas’ would 
be substituted for the expression ‘continental shelf.’ ”’ 
You then referred to definitions of the continental shelf, continental slope and 
continental terrace, adopted by the International Committee of Scientific Experts 
at Monaco in 1952, which were generally similar to those used at Ciudad Trujillo. 
After some discussion of the pros and cons of your proposal to substitute the 
term ‘submarine areas” for the term “continental shelf’, you made remarks 
which are reported (at p. 1386) as follows: 
“6. He did not wish to press the part of his amendment introducing the con- 
cept of the continerftal terrace, since the adoption of the second point relating 
to the depth at which exploitation was practical would automatically bring that 
area within the general concept. He would, however, request the Commission to 
take a decision on the right of ‘States to exploit the natural resources of the sea- 
bed in adjacent waters to whatever depth was practicable. With that addition, 
the article could be referred to the Drafting Committee.” 
After further discussion, your proposal for incorporation of the exploitability 
concept was summarized and favorably acted upon (p. 139) as follows: 
“45, Mr. Padilla-Nervo pointed out that what in fact the Commission had to 
vote on was the Chairman’s proposal to incorporate in article 1 the concept con- 
tained in the words ‘or, beyond that limit, to where the depth of the superjacent 
waters admits of the exploitation of the natural resources of the said areas’.” * 
It seems perfectly clear to me from this record that the language actually 
accepted by the ILC and later incorporated into the Geneva Convention was in- 
tended to be entirely equivalent in legal effect to the language adopted at Ciudad 
Trujillo. However, some of those who are attempting to limit national juris- 
diction of the coastal states to the 200-meter isobath seek to gain support for 
their position from a statement of yours which is reported at page 135 as follows: 
“95. The Chairman, in reply to Mr. Scelle, pointed out that the words ‘adjacent 
to the coastal State’ in his proposal placed a very clear limitation on the sub- 
marine areas covered by the article. The adjacent areas ended at the point where 
the slope down to the ocean bed began, which was not more than 25 miles from the 
coast.” 
I have great trouble with this statement on two counts. In the first place, the 
definition of “continental terrace” utilized both at Ciudad Trujillo and at the 
FKighth Session of the ILC made it perfectly clear that it was your intention that 
the exploitability test should extend national jurisdiction not to “the point where 
the slope down to the ocean bed began”, but to the lower extremity of “the slope 
from the edge of the continental shelf to the greatest depths.” In the second 
place, there are parts of South America off Argentina where the continental 
shelf extends several hundred miles before it even reaches a depth of 200 meters, 
so that you could not possibly have intended to impose a 25 mile limitation on 
the extent of coastal nation jurisdiction over natural resources under the con- 
vention. 
As I read the official text of the Geneva Convention on the Continental Shelf, 
it fully supports the position adopted at Ciudad Trujillo and advocated by you 
at the Highth Session of the ILC; namely, that coastal nation jurisdiction over 
*This proposal was adopted by 7 votes to 5, with 3 abstentions, 
