shelf be fixed at the 200-meter isobath, or 50 

 nautical miles from the baselines used for meas- 

 uring the breadth of its territorial sea, whichever 

 alternative gives the coastal State the greater area 

 for permanent, exclusive mineral resources explo- 

 ration and exploitation. (This 200 meter/50 mile 

 pairing is about as close together as pairings on 

 worldwide averages of the depth and width of the 

 world's geological continental shelves can reason- 

 ably be).'' ' 



By providing the 200 meter/50 mile alternative, 

 the inequity of a definition in terms of depth 

 alone will be avoided for those coastal States 

 which either are not on a geological continental 

 shelf, as in the Persian Gulf, or which have coasts 

 that drop almost immediately to great depths, as 

 is the case off the west coast of South America. 

 While the logic of attempting to remove this 

 "inequity" has been doubted,' ' ^ the coastal 

 States in question feel the inequity strongly and 

 their claims in this respect cannot be ignored.' '^ 



If the same continental shelf, as redefined, is 

 claimed by two or more States whose coasts are 

 opposite each other, or by two or more adjacent 

 States, the boundaries shall be determined by 

 applying the "median-line" principles set forth in 

 Article 6 of the Convention on the Continental 



The average width of the geological continental shelf 

 is about 40 nautical miles, but it varies from 5 miles to 

 more than 700 miles. The average edge of the shelf is at a 

 depth of 132 meters, but shelves are known to terminate 

 at depths less than 70 meters and greater than 600 meters. 

 Very few, however, terminate at a depth of more than 

 200 meters. See Shepard, Submarine Geology (2d ed. 

 1963). 



. . .a doctrine based on a continental shelf will 

 obviously discriminate against those who have no shelf, as 

 it does against those who have no coast at all. It is a 

 discrimination of geography, and deserves no compensa- 

 tion any more than do other natural disadvantages." 

 Henkin, supra note 38, at 21, n. 62. But granted the 

 desire to achieve equity. Professor Henkin suggests a 

 redefinition of the continental shelf solely in terms of 

 distance from shore. Id., at 43, n. 129. Since such a 

 proposal may cut back "sovereign rights" possessed by 

 some coastal States under the Convention on the Conti- 

 nental Shelf, we do not think it has a realistic chance of 

 acceptance. Professor Henkin agrees with this practical 

 appraisal. Id., at 45, n. 134. 



113 



There is great dissimilarity in the extent of water of 

 less than 200 meters surrounding the continents. Europe 

 has 0.9 million square nautical mUes of depth less than 

 200 meters; Asia has 2.7 million, mostly in eastern seas; 

 Africa has only 0.4 million; Australia has 0.8 million; 

 North America has 2.0 million, mostly in the Atlantic and 

 Arctic; South America has 0.7 million largely off 

 Argentina; Antarctica has 0.1 million; and isolated islands 

 have 0.4 million. See Kossina, Die Tiefer des Weltmeers 

 (1921). 



Shelf. Furthermore, if the recommended redefini- 

 tion should leave, between the outer limits of the 

 continental shelves of two or more States whose 

 coasts are opposite each other, an area so small 

 that it should not, as a practical matter, be made 

 subject to the recommended legal-political frame- 

 work for exploration and exploitation beyond the 

 continental shelf as redefined, the area should be 

 divided in accordance with the "median-line" 

 principles laid down in Article 6 of the Convention 

 on the Continental Shelf. 



Changes in sea level, eroding shore lines, and 

 complex bottom topography can make it difficult 

 to apply the recommended 200 meter/ 50 nautical 

 mile definition of the continental shelf. For this 

 reason, the panel recommends that the best 

 available bathymetric surveys be used to translate 

 this definition into geographical coordinates for 

 each coastal State. The resulting description 

 should be recorded with the International Registry 

 Authority recommended below and should not be 

 subject to change because of alterations in the 

 coastline or the revelations of more detailed 

 surveys. 



In parts of the world, too, the 200-meter 

 isobath traces a circuitous position. To simplify 

 definition of the Continental Shelf, it would be 

 desirable to adopt a system analogous to the 

 straight baseUne system used to measure the 

 breadth of the territorial sea. 



Any redefinition of the continental shelf must 

 also give special consideration to the problems 

 presented by islands. We have not been able to 

 solve these problems to our satisfaction and, 

 therefore, make no recommendations in this 

 respect. 



C. An Intermediate Zone 



The panel recommends that intermediate zones 

 should be created off the coasts of States encom- 

 passing the bed and subsoil of the deep seas, i.e., 

 the area beyond the continental shelf as redefined, 

 but only to the base of the continental slopes 

 around most of the continents. Again, in order to 

 have limits that are fixed and certain and to lessen 

 the inequity that some coastal States will feel if a 

 depth limit alone is used, it is recommended that 

 the outer limits of the intermediate zone be 

 defined in terms of the 2,500 meter isobath or 100 



VHI-34 



