began, which was not more than 25 miles from the 

 coast."" 



The draftsmen of the Geneva Convention were 

 well aware of the distinction between the "shelf 

 and the "slope." Had they intended to convey the 

 meaning NPC now advances, they would have used 

 the term "slope" or, more simply, eliminated the 

 terms "shelf and "slope" and the reference to 

 200 meters as well; they would have defined the 

 "submarine areas" over which sovereign rights to 

 mineral resources exploration and exploitation 

 were being accorded as limited only by the 

 adjacency and exploitability criteria. 



c. At the other extreme, it may be argued 

 with reason that the definition in the Convention 

 makes the adjacency criterion supreme even over 

 the 200 meter criterion, so that all the area out to 

 a depth of 200 meters is not, by that fact alone, 

 part of a coastal State's continental shelf but is so 

 only if it is all "adjacent" to the coast. 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 

 is no longer reasonably "adjacent" to it. 



d. As the "least implausible interpretation" of 

 the continental shelf definition. Professor Henkin 

 suggests that the 200-meter isobath limit, which in 

 fact corresponds roughly to the edge of the 

 geological shelf, should be viewed "as an effort by 

 lawyers to approximate the geological definition in 

 a form that affords precision and clarity."*** The 

 exploitability criterion, on the other hand, should 

 be viewed as giving the coastal State sovereign 

 rights for the purpose of exploiting the natural 

 resources of any part of the geological continental 

 shelf underlying waters deeper than 200 meters, if 



and when it becomes technologically possible to 

 extract the resources from such depths.*' 



e. However, Professor Henkin acknowledges 

 that this view does not express the precise inten- 

 tion of the draftsmen of the Convention who 

 wished, by the exploitability criterion, to give 

 rights "to coastal States in waters less than 200 

 meters deep that were not on a geological conti- 

 nental shelf, as in the Persian Gulf," as well as to 

 States, particularly in Latin America, "whose 

 coasts dropped almost immediately to great depths 

 and who insisted on 'equal' treatment, on getting 

 something out of this new regime."** 



Accordingly, it might be suggested, the "200 

 meter isobath . . . should be the limit of the shelf 

 for nations with 'normal' coast lines, and the 

 exploitabiHty test should apply only to those who 

 do not have a geological continental shelf."* ' But 

 the language of the Convention makes no such 

 distinction. 



It is interesting to note, in this connection, that 

 the NPC recognizes that an interpretation of the 

 definition of the "continental shelf which would 

 fix its outer limit at the base of the continental 

 slope would only magnify the "inequality" be- 

 tween States with "normal" shelves and slopes and 

 those whose coasts drop off sharply to the abyssal 

 ocean floor. For this reason, the NPC would 

 include an area of the abyssal ocean floor in the 

 definition of the "continental shelf of those 

 States. But clearly, the legislative history of the 

 Convention on the Continental Shelf gives no 

 support whatsoever for such an "interpretation." 



f. Professor Henkin sees no way "to 'redefine' 

 the outer limit" of the continental shelf "by 

 interpretation of the Convention."* * As guidelines 

 to suggest when a coastal State may have reached 

 too far, he proposes: 



*^Statement of Dr. Garcia-Amador in I 1956 ILC 

 Yearbook, at 135. It is difficult to reconcile this 

 statement, we realize, with the exploitability criterion 

 itself. Professor Henkin suggests that it "is open to 

 question" whether "this view of adjacency survived the 

 addition of the exploitability clause." Henkin, supra note 

 38, at 24, n. 72. But Dr. Garcia-Amador's statement was 

 made after the exploitability criterion was added. See 

 also, McDougal and Burke, The Public Order of the 

 Oceans 685-86 (1962). 



*'*Henkin, supra note 38, at 19. See also 1951 ILC 

 Report, at 18; Sovereignty Over the Sea, Geographical 

 Bulletin No. 3, at 7 (The Geographer, U.S. Dep't of State, 

 1965). In fact, the geological shelf averages a maximum 

 depth of about 130 meters, with few areas beyond 200 

 meters. G. Pearcy, Department of State Memorandum 5. 



*'Henkin, Supra note 38, at 19-20. This seems to be the 

 view of Mr. Arthur H. Dean who was chairman of the 

 United States Delegations to the 1958 and 1960 Law of 

 the Sea Conference at Geneva. See Dean, The Law of the 

 Sea Conference, 1958-60 and Its Aftermath, in The Law 

 of the Sea 246 (Alexander ed. 1967). But cf. id. at 248. 



**/d. at 20. Until technology cait reach to any pcean 

 depth, there is no possibility of "equal treatment" even 

 under the exploitability criterion because that criterion 

 will give a state with a "normal" continental shelf and 

 slope a greater submarine area for mineral resources 

 exploitation than a State whose coast drops almost 

 immediately to great depths. 



*''Henkin, supra note 38, at 20-21. 



**/d at 21. 



VIII- 19 



