IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/marpol/v51y2015icp339-346.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Australian practice in respect of the continental shelf beyond 200 nautical miles

Author

Listed:
  • Kaye, Stuart

Abstract

Australia׳s remote location and position on the vast Indo-Australian plate mean that possesses one of the largest continental shelf areas in the world. The criteria in Article 76 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea permit the claiming on continental shelf to 200 nautical miles from territorial sea baselines, and if certain criteria are met based on the configuration and content of the seabed, to distances beyond. During the negotiations at UNCLOS III, Australia was a strong proponent of this extended shelf regime, as it was likely to have large areas beyond 200 nautical miles. Article 76 provides for a number of requirements to be met for a coastal State to assert sovereign rights over areas of continental shelf beyond 200 nautical miles, including a ten year deadline from becoming a party. This placed a disproportionate burden upon Australia, as it faced the same ten year time frame to lodge data with the Commission on the Limits on the Continental Shelf (CLCS) as other States with much smaller areas in issue. Australia also chose not to rely upon measures agreed between State parties to effectively extend this deadline, and to limit the requirements to be met within it. This paper looks at how Australian authorities approached the difficult task, while maintaining the standards required for data by the CLCS, and how the task was ultimately implemented. It also examines how the extended continental shelf arrangements interacted with the rest of Australia׳s law of the sea practice and maritime boundaries with other States. For example, after the entry into force of the Convention, Australia negotiated two maritime boundaries with neighbouring States that each explicitly dealt with areas beyond 200 nautical miles. It concludes with consideration of what issues remain unresolved in respect of the Australian continental shelf beyond 200 nautical miles. The paper will conclude at how Australia׳s implementation has raised new issues with neighbouring States, including an unresolved dispute in the South Pacific Ocean.

Suggested Citation

  • Kaye, Stuart, 2015. "Australian practice in respect of the continental shelf beyond 200 nautical miles," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(C), pages 339-346.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:marpol:v:51:y:2015:i:c:p:339-346
    DOI: 10.1016/j.marpol.2014.09.016
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0308597X14002498
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.marpol.2014.09.016?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Continental shelf; Law of the sea;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:marpol:v:51:y:2015:i:c:p:339-346. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/marpol .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.