全球外大陸架劃界進(jìn)展與形勢(shì)分析

方銀霞 尹 潔 唐 勇 李金蓉

全球外大陸架劃界進(jìn)展與形勢(shì)分析

方銀霞*尹 潔**唐 勇***李金蓉****

自2001年俄羅斯率先提交劃定其200海里以外大陸架外部界限的劃界案以來已經(jīng)15年，截至2016年6月30日，大陸架界限委員會(huì)收到的劃界案總數(shù)達(dá)81個(gè)，完成審議并通過委員會(huì)建議的劃界案有24個(gè)。本文系統(tǒng)介紹了全球外大陸架劃界案提交情況、委員會(huì)對(duì)劃界案的處理模式以及審議時(shí)重點(diǎn)關(guān)注的問題等，并從科學(xué)和法律兩個(gè)角度分析了當(dāng)前外大陸架劃界實(shí)踐的特點(diǎn)與未來發(fā)展趨勢(shì)。因此，本文建議，我們應(yīng)加大相關(guān)科學(xué)技術(shù)和法理問題研究，及時(shí)總結(jié)大陸架制度理論與實(shí)踐的最新發(fā)展，以便為我國(guó)今后外大陸架劃界和積極應(yīng)對(duì)侵害我國(guó)海洋權(quán)益的他國(guó)劃界主張?zhí)峁﹨⒖己徒梃b。

200海里以外大陸架 劃界案 大陸架界限委員會(huì) 委員會(huì)建議

一、引 言

根據(jù)《聯(lián)合國(guó)海洋法公約》（以下簡(jiǎn)稱“《公約》”）第76條規(guī)定，沿海國(guó)的大陸架包括其領(lǐng)海以外陸地領(lǐng)土的全部自然延伸，擴(kuò)展到大陸邊外緣的海底區(qū)域的海床和底土，如果從領(lǐng)?；€量起到大陸邊的外緣的距離不到200海里，則擴(kuò)展到200海里；如果超過其領(lǐng)?；€200海里，則可以主張200海里以外的大陸架。①國(guó)家海洋局海洋發(fā)展戰(zhàn)略研究所編：《聯(lián)合國(guó)海洋法公約（漢英）》，北京：海洋出版社1996年版。根據(jù)《公約》上述規(guī)定，沿海國(guó)可根據(jù)其大陸邊緣的地貌形態(tài)和地質(zhì)條件，將大陸架外部界限最遠(yuǎn)劃到領(lǐng)海基線350海里或2500米等深線外100海里。《公約》附件二第4條還規(guī)定，擬按照第76條劃定其200海里以外大陸架外部界限的沿海國(guó)，應(yīng)將這種界限的詳情連同支持這種界限的科學(xué)和技術(shù)資料（以下簡(jiǎn)稱“劃界案”），盡早提交至大陸架界限委員會(huì)（以下簡(jiǎn)稱“委員會(huì)”）。

為了執(zhí)行《公約》第76條，委員會(huì)于1997年3月正式成立。根據(jù)《公約》規(guī)定，委員會(huì)除了為沿海國(guó)提供大陸架外部界限劃定的科學(xué)和技術(shù)咨詢意見外，其主要職能是審議沿海國(guó)提交的關(guān)于200海里以外大陸架外部界限的劃界案并提出建議，沿海國(guó)根據(jù)委員會(huì)建議確定的大陸架外部界限才是具有約束力的最后界限。

委員會(huì)于1997年第2屆會(huì)議上通過了《委員會(huì)的工作方式》，②CLCS/L.3文件。2001年第9屆會(huì)議上通過了《委員會(huì)小組委員會(huì)內(nèi)部程序》，③CLCS/L.12文件。2004年第13屆會(huì)議上通過了《大陸架界限委員會(huì)議事規(guī)則》（以下簡(jiǎn)稱“《議事規(guī)則》”），后者取代了上述2份文件。由于委員會(huì)工作是項(xiàng)全新的工作，因此隨著外大陸架劃界實(shí)踐的不斷發(fā)展，《議事規(guī)則》也在不斷補(bǔ)充和完善中，2008年4月委員會(huì)第21屆會(huì)議通過了修訂版《議事規(guī)則》，基本明確了委員會(huì)的工作方式和流程。④CLCS/40/Rev.1文件。1999年5月13日委員會(huì)第5屆會(huì)議還通過了《大陸架界限委員會(huì)科學(xué)和技術(shù)準(zhǔn)則》（以下簡(jiǎn)稱“《科學(xué)和技術(shù)準(zhǔn)則》”）及其附件等一系列重要技術(shù)文件。⑤CLCS/11文件?！蹲h事規(guī)則》和《科學(xué)和技術(shù)準(zhǔn)則》的通過表明委員會(huì)已經(jīng)做好了接受沿海國(guó)劃界案的準(zhǔn)備工作?？紤]到只有在委員會(huì)通過《科學(xué)和技術(shù)準(zhǔn)則》之后，各沿海國(guó)才能依照《科學(xué)和技術(shù)準(zhǔn)則》要求編寫劃界案，2001年《公約》締約國(guó)第11次會(huì)議決定，對(duì)于《公約》在1999年5月13日以前開始對(duì)其生效的締約國(guó)，《公約》附件二第4條規(guī)定的向委員會(huì)提交劃界案的10年期限從《科學(xué)和技術(shù)準(zhǔn)則》通過的1999年5月13日開始起算，⑥SPLOS/72號(hào)文件。也就是說，這些沿海國(guó)劃界案提交的截止日期統(tǒng)一為2009年5月13日。

二、外大陸架劃界案提交概況

2001年12月20日，俄羅斯率先向委員會(huì)提交了劃界案，這是委員會(huì)成立以來收到的第1個(gè)劃界案。自俄羅斯劃界案提交以來的近15年里（截至2016年6月30日）劃界案總數(shù)已達(dá)81個(gè)（含俄羅斯、巴西和巴巴多斯的4個(gè)修訂劃界案）（圖1）。⑦At http://www.un.org/depts/los/clcs_new/commission_submissions.htm, 18 October 2016.從提交時(shí)間來看，2009年5月13日截止日前共有50個(gè)劃界案，占62%，截止日之后提交了31個(gè)，占38%。從劃界案形式來看，81個(gè)劃界案中，修訂劃界案4個(gè)，聯(lián)合劃界案7個(gè)，⑧法國(guó)、愛爾蘭、西班牙、英國(guó)有關(guān)凱爾特海和比斯開灣區(qū)的聯(lián)合劃界案，毛里求斯和塞舌爾關(guān)于馬斯克林海臺(tái)的聯(lián)合劃界案，密克羅尼西亞、巴布亞新幾內(nèi)亞和所羅門群島關(guān)于翁通瓜哇海臺(tái)的聯(lián)合劃界案，馬來西亞和越南關(guān)于南海南部的聯(lián)合劃界案，法國(guó)和南非關(guān)于克羅澤群島和愛德華王子群島的聯(lián)合劃界案，圖瓦盧、法國(guó)、新西蘭（托克勞）關(guān)于羅比海脊的聯(lián)合劃界案，佛得角、岡比亞、幾內(nèi)亞比紹、幾內(nèi)亞、毛里塔尼亞、塞內(nèi)加爾和塞拉利昂西非七國(guó)聯(lián)合劃界案。部分劃界案多達(dá)48個(gè)，另有5個(gè)劃界案在委員會(huì)審議之前又提交了補(bǔ)充材料。⑨斐濟(jì)劃界案，庫克群島關(guān)于馬尼基希海臺(tái)劃界案，法國(guó)和南非關(guān)于克洛澤群島和愛德華王子群島的聯(lián)合劃界案，南非大陸劃界案，密克羅尼西亞、巴布亞新幾內(nèi)亞、所羅門群島關(guān)于翁通爪哇海臺(tái)的聯(lián)合劃界案。從劃界案的提交國(guó)來看，81個(gè)劃界案共涉及77個(gè)國(guó)家，部分國(guó)家以不同形式提交了多個(gè)劃界案，其中，最多的是法國(guó)，共提交了7個(gè)（含3個(gè)聯(lián)合劃界案），英國(guó)提交了4個(gè)（含1個(gè)聯(lián)合劃界案），丹麥提交了4個(gè)，愛爾蘭和西班牙均提交了3個(gè)（各含1個(gè)聯(lián)合劃界案），挪威、墨西哥、湯加都提交了2個(gè)，另有新西蘭、毛里求斯、南非、密克羅尼西亞、越南、塞舌爾等國(guó)也都提交了2個(gè)（各含1個(gè)聯(lián)合劃界案）。

除重復(fù)的4個(gè)修訂案外，77個(gè)劃界案中有68個(gè)劃定的外大陸架呈圈閉的多邊形區(qū)，但也有9個(gè)劃界案只確定了大陸架外部界限，并未形成圈閉區(qū)塊，如蘇里南劃界案、英國(guó)關(guān)于哈頓—羅科爾區(qū)劃界案、越南關(guān)于中國(guó)南海北部劃界案、英國(guó)有關(guān)?？颂m島的劃界案、湯加關(guān)于克馬德克海脊東部區(qū)劃界案、中國(guó)東海部分海域劃界案、韓國(guó)劃界案、尼加拉瓜劃界案、法國(guó)關(guān)于圣皮埃爾—密克隆島劃界案。由于未形成圈閉多邊形，這9個(gè)劃界案的外大陸架面積無法準(zhǔn)確計(jì)算，剩余68個(gè)劃界案所申請(qǐng)的外大陸架總面積約3000多萬平方千米。

圖1 全球外大陸架劃界形勢(shì)圖（據(jù)委員會(huì)官網(wǎng)發(fā)布的劃界案數(shù)據(jù)編繪）（綠色為專屬經(jīng)濟(jì)區(qū)，橙色為沿海國(guó)劃界案所主張的外大陸架）

考慮到締約國(guó)，特別是包括小島嶼發(fā)展中國(guó)家在內(nèi)的發(fā)展中國(guó)家，在履行《公約》附件二第4條規(guī)定的10年期限時(shí)可能會(huì)遇到的問題，2008年締約國(guó)第18次會(huì)議決定，可通過提交200海里以外大陸架外部界限的初步信息以及關(guān)于劃界案編寫情況和預(yù)計(jì)提交日期的說明（以下簡(jiǎn)稱“初步信息”）來滿足《公約》附件二第4條關(guān)于10年期限的規(guī)定。⑩SPLOS/183號(hào)文件。

到2016年6月30日，共有44個(gè)國(guó)家提交了47份初步信息，①At http://www.un.org/depts/los/clcs_new/commission_preliminary.htm, 18 October 2016.其中在2009年5月13日截止日前共有39個(gè)國(guó)家提交了42份初步信息，此后，不受統(tǒng)一截止日期限制的赤道幾內(nèi)亞、科摩羅、瓦努阿圖、尼加拉瓜、加拿大和摩洛哥6國(guó)又先后提交了初步信息。提交的47份初步信息中有3份為聯(lián)合初步信息；②貝寧和多哥關(guān)于幾內(nèi)亞灣區(qū)的聯(lián)合初步信息，斐濟(jì)和所羅門群島關(guān)于夏洛特暗灘區(qū)的聯(lián)合初步信息，斐濟(jì)、所羅門群島和瓦努阿圖關(guān)于北斐濟(jì)海盆區(qū)的聯(lián)合初步信息。提交初步信息的44個(gè)國(guó)家中發(fā)達(dá)國(guó)家有4個(gè)，分別是法國(guó)、西班牙、新西蘭和加拿大，其余40個(gè)均為發(fā)展中國(guó)家；法國(guó)、毛里求斯、多哥和所羅門群島4國(guó)都提交了2份初步信息。

對(duì)比初步信息和劃界案提交情況可以發(fā)現(xiàn)，44個(gè)提交初步信息的國(guó)家中已經(jīng)有25個(gè)國(guó)家（占57%）正式向委員會(huì)提交了18個(gè)劃界案，其中含佛得角、岡比亞、幾內(nèi)亞比紹、幾內(nèi)亞、毛里塔尼亞、塞內(nèi)加爾和塞拉利昂的西非七國(guó)聯(lián)合劃界案。

三、委員會(huì)對(duì)劃界案的處理模式

委員會(huì)是按照各國(guó)提交劃界案的先后順序進(jìn)行審議的。截至2016年6月30日，委員會(huì)已完成24個(gè)劃界案（含俄羅斯和巴巴多斯2個(gè)修訂案）的審議，并在聯(lián)合國(guó)網(wǎng)站發(fā)布了委員會(huì)建議摘要。③At http://www.un.org/depts/los/clcs_new/commission_submissions.htm, 18 October 2016.此外，委員會(huì)全會(huì)正在審議的建議草案有2個(gè)，小組委員會(huì)正在審議的劃界案有10個(gè)（包括新提交的俄羅斯關(guān)于北冰洋的修訂劃界案），另有7個(gè)劃界案被推遲審議。迄今，不審議的情況主要有兩種，第一種是涉及南極陸地領(lǐng)土的劃界案，如澳大利亞、阿根廷、挪威劃界案均涉及到《南極條約》關(guān)于凍結(jié)南緯60°以南領(lǐng)土所有權(quán)主張的規(guī)定，委員會(huì)認(rèn)為其無權(quán)處理與《南極條約》相關(guān)的問題而不予審議。第二種情況是如果兩個(gè)國(guó)家提出的劃界案涉及同一區(qū)域，并存在領(lǐng)土主權(quán)或海域劃界爭(zhēng)端，委員會(huì)則對(duì)此不予審議，如阿根廷和英國(guó)劃界案所涉及的馬爾維納斯群島（英稱福克蘭群島），因劃界案涉及馬爾維納斯群島的主權(quán)歸屬問題，委員會(huì)決定不審議。從委員會(huì)審議劃界案情況的分析可以看出，委員會(huì)對(duì)劃界案的處理模式通常有以下3種。④李金蓉、羅婷婷、萬芳芳：《200海里外大陸架劃界案審議進(jìn)程及發(fā)展趨勢(shì)研究》，載于《國(guó)際論壇》2014年第3期，第37～42頁。

（1）全部審議：如果劃界案所涉及的區(qū)域不存在陸地領(lǐng)土和海域劃界爭(zhēng)端，即委員會(huì)未收到有關(guān)國(guó)對(duì)此劃界案提出引用委員會(huì)《議事規(guī)則》附件一第5(a)條款的反應(yīng)照會(huì)，委員會(huì)將建立小組委員會(huì)負(fù)責(zé)審議沿海國(guó)所擬劃定的大陸架外部界限是否具有充分的依據(jù)，然后以建議的方式對(duì)沿海國(guó)提交的外大陸架主張作出認(rèn)可、部分認(rèn)可或否定的決定。如已經(jīng)完成審議并通過委員會(huì)建議的俄羅斯劃界案及其鄂霍次克海修訂案、巴西劃界案、愛爾蘭關(guān)于波丘潘深海平原的劃界案、新西蘭劃界案、法國(guó)—愛爾蘭—英國(guó)—西班牙聯(lián)合劃界案、挪威關(guān)于東北大西洋和北冰洋區(qū)的劃界案、墨西哥關(guān)于墨西哥灣西部多邊形區(qū)劃界案、巴巴多斯劃界案及其修訂案、英國(guó)關(guān)于阿森松島劃界案、印度尼西亞關(guān)于蘇門達(dá)臘島西北區(qū)劃界案、毛里求斯和塞舌爾聯(lián)合劃界案、蘇里南劃界案、法國(guó)關(guān)于安的列斯群島和凱爾蓋朗島劃界案、菲律賓關(guān)于貝漢姆隆起劃界案、加納劃界案、丹麥關(guān)于法羅群島劃界案和巴基斯坦劃界案。

（2）推遲審議：在有些劃界案中，盡管相關(guān)國(guó)家有引用《議事規(guī)則》附件一第5(a)提交的反應(yīng)照會(huì)，但由于該劃界案仍在排隊(duì)中，考慮到有關(guān)國(guó)家正在或即將協(xié)商解決爭(zhēng)端，委員會(huì)決定暫時(shí)擱置劃界案，待排隊(duì)輪到時(shí)再做考慮；如果爭(zhēng)端問題仍未解決則繼續(xù)等候，直至相關(guān)國(guó)家都不反對(duì)。如緬甸劃界案因孟加拉的反對(duì)推遲審議，也門關(guān)于索科特拉島東南區(qū)劃界案因索馬里的反對(duì)推遲審議，斐濟(jì)劃界案因瓦努阿圖的反對(duì)推遲審議，英國(guó)和愛爾蘭關(guān)于哈頓—羅科爾區(qū)兩個(gè)劃界案均因冰島和丹麥的反對(duì)推遲審議，馬來西亞—越南聯(lián)合劃界案也因?yàn)橹袊?guó)和菲律賓提交了反對(duì)照會(huì)而推遲審議，肯尼亞劃界案則因索馬里的反對(duì)而推遲審議。

（3）部分審議：如上所述，如果沿海國(guó)所提交的劃界案中的部分區(qū)域涉及南極陸地領(lǐng)土，或者涉及陸地領(lǐng)土或海域劃界爭(zhēng)端，委員會(huì)按照具體情況采取不審議或推遲審議，或只對(duì)其中不涉及南極、陸地領(lǐng)土或海域劃界爭(zhēng)議部分進(jìn)行審議并給出建議。如對(duì)澳大利亞劃界案中涉及南極陸地領(lǐng)土部分不審議，只審議了澳大利亞劃界案的阿爾戈區(qū)、澳大利亞大海灣區(qū)、凱爾蓋朗海臺(tái)區(qū)、豪勛爵海隆區(qū)、麥夸里海嶺區(qū)、博物學(xué)家海臺(tái)區(qū)、三王海脊區(qū)、沃勒比和?？怂姑┧购Ｅ_(tái)區(qū)等9個(gè)區(qū)塊。對(duì)阿根廷劃界案中涉及南極陸地領(lǐng)土部分和涉及領(lǐng)土爭(zhēng)端的馬爾維納斯群島部分均不審議，只審議了阿根廷被動(dòng)陸緣北部區(qū)和復(fù)合型陸緣西部區(qū)。另外，暫不審議法國(guó)關(guān)于法屬圭亞那和新喀里多尼亞劃界案中涉及新喀里多尼亞東南區(qū)的部分，只審議了法屬圭亞那部分和新喀里多尼亞西南區(qū)。對(duì)日本劃界案中涉及沖之鳥礁的部分也暫不審議，只審議了南硫磺島區(qū)、南鳥島區(qū)、茂木洋脊區(qū)、小笠原海臺(tái)區(qū)、沖大東洋脊南部區(qū)和四國(guó)海盆區(qū)。⑤方銀霞、唐勇、付潔：《日本劃界案大陸架界限委員會(huì)建議摘要解讀》,載于《中國(guó)海洋法學(xué)評(píng)論》2013年第2期，第96～109頁。

四、委員會(huì)審議劃界案重點(diǎn)關(guān)注的問題

根據(jù)委員會(huì)《議事規(guī)則》的相關(guān)規(guī)定，劃界案的委員會(huì)建議全文是不公開的，所以我們很難全面了解委員會(huì)對(duì)劃界案的審議情況，但是劃界案的建議摘要委員會(huì)會(huì)妥為公布在聯(lián)合國(guó)網(wǎng)站上，我們藉此可大致了解委員會(huì)對(duì)劃界案的審議情況。從公布的委員會(huì)建議摘要來看，委員會(huì)對(duì)劃界案的審議主要按委員會(huì)是否有權(quán)審議、劃界海域的區(qū)域地質(zhì)地理概況、沿海國(guó)陸塊的自然延伸情況、大陸坡腳的確定、大陸邊外緣的確定、大陸架外部界限的確定等內(nèi)容進(jìn)行。從建立小組委員會(huì)開始，在具體審議劃界案的過程中，小組委員會(huì)審議重點(diǎn)主要在于陸坡基部區(qū)和大陸坡腳是否合理、1%沉積物厚度點(diǎn)是否可靠、2500米等深線外延100海里限制線是否適用、200海里線上的點(diǎn)是否合理等問題。

（一）陸坡基部區(qū)及大陸坡腳點(diǎn)是否合理

委員會(huì)認(rèn)為大陸坡腳是一項(xiàng)重要的地形特征，《公約》規(guī)定的擴(kuò)展大陸架的兩條公式線均是基于大陸坡腳來確定，因此它是擴(kuò)展大陸架的重要基礎(chǔ)，也是委員會(huì)審議的一個(gè)重要參數(shù)。根據(jù)《科學(xué)和技術(shù)準(zhǔn)則》規(guī)定，大陸坡腳的確定主要有兩種方法，一種是根據(jù)大陸邊緣的地形地貌形態(tài)特征，在陸坡基部區(qū)選取坡度變化最大之點(diǎn)，另一種方法是利用相反證據(jù)，在利用坡度變化最大之點(diǎn)的地貌證據(jù)無法可靠地確定大陸坡腳位置時(shí)，可以基于利用地質(zhì)和地球物理等證據(jù)得到的洋陸過渡帶來確定大陸坡腳。從目前已審議完成的劃界案來看，大陸坡腳的確定基本都采用第一種方法，即在陸坡基部區(qū)選擇坡度變化最大之點(diǎn)作為大陸坡腳。

在英國(guó)關(guān)于阿森松島劃界案的審議過程中，委員會(huì)對(duì)英國(guó)提出的陸坡基部區(qū)以及確定的大陸坡腳位置提出質(zhì)疑，雙方經(jīng)多次溝通，始終未達(dá)成一致意見。英國(guó)把大西洋洋中脊擴(kuò)張軸的拉張裂谷以及與裂谷區(qū)有關(guān)的深海盆地都看作是阿森松島的陸坡。委員會(huì)認(rèn)為作為深海底一部分的大洋擴(kuò)張構(gòu)造，只有當(dāng)這些離散的海底構(gòu)造隆起形成島嶼時(shí)才能成為該島嶼陸坡的一部分，而阿森松島明顯不屬于這種情況，阿森松島在地形地貌上與這些離散分布的海底隆起并不連續(xù)（圖2）。委員會(huì)建議指出，阿森松島和中大西洋洋中脊軸部之間的起伏海底屬于正常洋殼的一部分，而非阿森松島的陸坡區(qū)，因此，英國(guó)在該區(qū)選定的大陸坡腳點(diǎn)均未得到委員會(huì)的認(rèn)可。⑥At http://www.un.org/Depts/los/clcs_new/submissions_fles/gbr08/gbr_asc_isl_rec_summ. pdf, 18 October 2016.

圖2 委員會(huì)建議的阿森松島大陸坡腳確定示意圖⑦

（二）1%沉積物厚度點(diǎn)是否可靠

沉積物厚度規(guī)則是確定擴(kuò)展大陸架的權(quán)利和劃定其外部界限的兩個(gè)同等有效的公式線之一，委員會(huì)對(duì)此審議也非常嚴(yán)格。沉積物厚度公式線的確定涉及沉積基底的確定、沉積物厚度的計(jì)算和沉積物分布的不連續(xù)性等技術(shù)問題。沉積物厚度可以通過直接取樣和間接勘測(cè)方法來確定，因?yàn)橛勉@探等直接取樣方法費(fèi)用昂貴，目前所提交的劃界案均是通過地震數(shù)據(jù)間接計(jì)算而來，這就涉及到沉積層的識(shí)別、速度譜分析、時(shí)深轉(zhuǎn)換等數(shù)據(jù)的可靠性問題，一般間接計(jì)算出的沉積厚度會(huì)有10%的誤差。比如，委員會(huì)在巴巴多斯劃界案審議中，對(duì)其中一個(gè)沉積物厚度點(diǎn)GP12的確定存有異議，委員會(huì)認(rèn)為巴巴多斯確定的厚度點(diǎn)涉及到大間距的內(nèi)插計(jì)算，要求提供其他佐證數(shù)據(jù)。為此，巴巴多斯提供了新的聲納浮標(biāo)數(shù)據(jù)來證實(shí)其速度模型，并利用地震測(cè)線對(duì)GP12點(diǎn)做了重新確定后才獲得委員會(huì)通過。⑧At http://www.un.org/Depts/los/clcs_new/submissions_fles/brb_10rev2011/brb_10rev2011 _summary_recommendations.pdf, 18 October 2016.

（三）2500米等深線外延100海里限制線是否適用

《公約》第76條提到三種法律意義上的脊，即深洋洋脊、海底洋脊和海底高地，它們所具有的外大陸架權(quán)利不同，其中，深洋洋脊沒有外大陸架，海底洋脊的大陸架外部界限最遠(yuǎn)不能超過350海里，而作為大陸邊自然組成部分的海底高地，最遠(yuǎn)可擴(kuò)展至350海里或2500米等深線外推100海里?！豆s》第76條雖規(guī)定了三類“脊”的大陸架權(quán)利，但對(duì)三類“脊”卻未給出準(zhǔn)確的定義或較明確的判別方法。由于《公約》對(duì)脊規(guī)定的不確定性，導(dǎo)致《科學(xué)和技術(shù)準(zhǔn)則》也沒能提供最終的解決方案，一些學(xué)者對(duì)此也進(jìn)行過探討，如委員會(huì)前委員西蒙茲等在論述洋脊條款時(shí)，將脊分為離散構(gòu)造背景和匯聚構(gòu)造背景下形成的兩大類脊，認(rèn)為脊的分類需考慮脊的成因、所處構(gòu)造位置等地質(zhì)因素。⑨Philip A. Symonds, Mike F. Coffin, George Taft and Hideo Kagami, Ridge Issues, in Peter J. Cook and Chris M. Carleton eds., Continental Shelf Limits: The Scientific and Legal Interface, New York: Oxford University Press, 2000, pp. 285～307.但同為委員會(huì)前委員的布瑞克等對(duì)脊的分類，則沒有考慮脊的地質(zhì)形成過程，而是更多的考慮脊與大陸邊的位置關(guān)系。⑩Harald Brekke and Philip A. Symonds, The Ridge Provisions of Article 76 of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, in Myron H. Nordquist, John Norton Moore and Tomas H. Heidar eds., Legal and Scientific Aspects of Continental Shelf Limits, Leiden/Boston: Martinus Nijhof f Publishers, 2004, pp. 169～199.從善意解釋《公約》的角度出發(fā)，筆者認(rèn)為只有與沿海國(guó)陸地及其水下自然延伸部分在地形上連續(xù)的，在地質(zhì)屬性上是一致的脊才為海底高地；地形上不連續(xù)的脊為深洋洋脊；而介于兩者之間，在地形上是連續(xù)的但地質(zhì)屬性上不一致的脊則為海底洋脊。①Wang Weiguo, Geological Structures of Ridges with Relation to the Definition of Three Types of Seafoor Highs Stipulated in Article 76, Acta Oceanologica Sinica, Vol. 30, No. 5, 2011, pp. 125～137.關(guān)于脊的界定，目前仍沒有較明確的判別原則與方法，委員會(huì)在對(duì)待具體的劃界案時(shí)，對(duì)脊屬性的認(rèn)識(shí)也不完全一致。

比如，委員會(huì)在審議澳大利亞劃界案時(shí)，對(duì)威廉姆斯海嶺、喬伊海隆是否為《公約》第76條所定義的海底高地提出質(zhì)疑，委員會(huì)認(rèn)為澳大利亞提交的數(shù)據(jù)只給出了關(guān)于威廉姆斯海嶺和喬伊海隆性質(zhì)和地質(zhì)起源的間接證據(jù)，不足以清晰解釋它們的地質(zhì)成因，不能認(rèn)定為是海底高地，也不同意澳大利亞根據(jù)2500米等深線外推100海里限制線確定的外部定點(diǎn)。②At http://www.un.org/Depts/los/clcs_new/submissions_fles/aus04/Aus_Recommendations_ FINAL.pdf, 18 October 2016.由此可見，委員會(huì)對(duì)三類脊的判定不僅僅只根據(jù)地形連續(xù)性，還充分考慮到地質(zhì)屬性上的一致性，這也完全符合《公約》規(guī)定不同脊享有不同大陸架權(quán)利的初衷。

（四）200海里線上的點(diǎn)是否合理

《公約》第76條第7款規(guī)定，沿海國(guó)的大陸架如從測(cè)算領(lǐng)海寬度的基線量起超過200海里，應(yīng)連接以經(jīng)緯度坐標(biāo)標(biāo)出的各定點(diǎn)劃出長(zhǎng)度各不超過60海里的若干直線，劃定其大陸架的外部界限。因此，澳大利亞劃界案在其主張的各個(gè)區(qū)塊，為了達(dá)到利益最大化，均采用長(zhǎng)度不超過60海里的線段連接公式線確定的點(diǎn)和200海里線上的任何定點(diǎn)來確定外部界限。然而，委員會(huì)認(rèn)為，這樣確定的外大陸架范圍超出了《公約》規(guī)定的范圍，大陸架外部界限最后定點(diǎn)的確定應(yīng)根據(jù)公式線與200海里線的交點(diǎn)來確定。因此，委員會(huì)不同意澳大利亞劃界案所有區(qū)塊所提交的位于200海里線上的點(diǎn)的確定方法。同理，委員會(huì)也不同意澳大利亞劃界案在麥夸里海嶺區(qū)和三王海嶺區(qū)用不超過60海里的直線來確定位于澳大利亞—新西蘭海洋界線上的各點(diǎn)。③At http://www.un.org/Depts/los/clcs_new/submissions_fles/aus04/Aus_Recommendations_ FINAL.pdf, 18 October 2016.

（五）350海里線外的點(diǎn)是否合理

這種情況主要見于聯(lián)合劃界案中，在提交的第一個(gè)法國(guó)—英國(guó)—愛爾蘭—西班牙四國(guó)聯(lián)合劃界案審議過程中，委員會(huì)發(fā)現(xiàn)盡管外部界限點(diǎn)FP 30位于西班牙350海里線之內(nèi)，但卻位于其他三國(guó)350海里線之外。而且委員會(huì)認(rèn)為FP 30是基于愛爾蘭而非西班牙的大陸邊緣擴(kuò)張延伸得到的，應(yīng)該受愛爾蘭350海里線的限制，因此，該點(diǎn)應(yīng)落在愛爾蘭350海里限制線內(nèi)/上而非線外，最終四國(guó)劃界案據(jù)此建議做了修改才獲得委員會(huì)的審議通過。④At http://www.un.org/Depts/los/clcs_new/submissions_fles/frgbires06/fsu_clcs_recommen dations_summary2009.pdf, 18 October 2016.

五、外大陸架劃界實(shí)踐的特點(diǎn)與發(fā)展趨勢(shì)

外大陸架蘊(yùn)藏著豐富的自然資源。同時(shí)《公約》第77條第1款寫明，“沿海國(guó)為勘探大陸架和開發(fā)其自然資源的目的，對(duì)大陸架行使主權(quán)權(quán)利。”可見，200海里以外大陸架外部界限的劃定，不僅關(guān)系到沿海國(guó)的主權(quán)權(quán)利問題，也與各國(guó)的經(jīng)濟(jì)利益直接相連。由于外大陸架豐富的自然資源及提交劃界申請(qǐng)所產(chǎn)生的宣示主權(quán)效應(yīng)，各國(guó)對(duì)于外大陸架申請(qǐng)這一“藍(lán)色圈地運(yùn)動(dòng)”越來越重視，投入力度也越來越大。特別是自2001年俄羅斯首次提交其劃界案以來的15年，沿海國(guó)關(guān)于外大陸架劃界的國(guó)家實(shí)踐和委員會(huì)對(duì)劃界案的審議工作模式都在不斷發(fā)展。從沿海國(guó)實(shí)踐來看，各沿海國(guó)劃界案的提交一開始主要還是為截止期限所迫，但現(xiàn)在越來越多的國(guó)家以積極主動(dòng)的態(tài)度，通過外大陸架劃界案的提交，全方位多層次地維護(hù)其海洋權(quán)益，凸顯和加劇了全球海洋劃界爭(zhēng)端。從委員會(huì)工作實(shí)踐來看，委員會(huì)對(duì)劃界案的審議程序、審議原則等均逐漸發(fā)展為固定模式，并反過來或多或少地影響著沿海國(guó)外大陸架劃界的實(shí)踐?？傮w來看，全球外大陸架劃界實(shí)踐具有以下特點(diǎn)。

（一）劃界主張存在大量重疊

從目前提交的77個(gè)劃界案來看，外大陸架主張重疊嚴(yán)重，其中有47個(gè)國(guó)家的主張區(qū)或多或少存在重疊（表1），且有個(gè)別情況非常嚴(yán)重，比如孟加拉、印度、緬甸、斯里蘭卡4國(guó)在孟加拉灣主張的外大陸架幾乎完全重疊在一起。此外，英國(guó)關(guān)于馬爾維納斯群島的大陸架主張也幾乎與阿根廷主張完全重疊；英國(guó)、愛爾蘭、冰島、丹麥四國(guó)在北大西洋哈頓—羅科爾海域的大陸架主張存在重疊；中國(guó)東海除了中日之間存在以釣魚島主權(quán)歸屬為核心的爭(zhēng)議外，韓國(guó)也在該海域提出外大陸架主張。在南海海域，則是以南沙群島的主權(quán)歸屬為核心的中國(guó)、越南、馬來西亞和菲律賓等國(guó)之間的爭(zhēng)議。實(shí)際上，各國(guó)外大陸架劃界主張重疊源于各海域已經(jīng)存在的主權(quán)爭(zhēng)端和劃界沖突，外大陸架劃界只是將這些矛盾重新顯示了出來。有些頗有爭(zhēng)議的劃界案，委員會(huì)肯定不會(huì)審議，但是對(duì)申請(qǐng)國(guó)而言，無論審議與否，通過提交外大陸架劃界案都達(dá)到了宣示主權(quán)的目的。因此，宣示主權(quán)也成了沿海國(guó)提交外大陸架劃界申請(qǐng)的重要原因。

表1 外大陸架劃界主張重疊情況統(tǒng)計(jì)

18加納—尼日利亞幾內(nèi)亞灣19肯尼亞—索馬里東非大陸邊緣20馬爾代夫—斯里蘭卡北大西洋21孟加拉—緬甸—斯里蘭卡—印度孟加拉灣22莫桑比克—南非西南印度洋23葡萄牙—西班牙加那利群島北部海域24葡萄牙—西非七國(guó)加那利群島南部海域25日本—帕勞菲律賓海26索馬里—坦桑尼亞東非大陸邊緣27索馬里—也門東非大陸邊緣28中國(guó)—韓國(guó)中國(guó)東海

（二）部分劃界案和聯(lián)合劃界案成為許多國(guó)家的選擇

由于各國(guó)劃界主張重疊嚴(yán)重，在實(shí)踐中，如果有關(guān)劃界案涉及劃界爭(zhēng)端或者其他相關(guān)海上或陸上爭(zhēng)端，利害關(guān)系國(guó)往往通過遞交外交照會(huì)發(fā)表評(píng)論意見的方式表達(dá)關(guān)切或反對(duì)，而此種評(píng)論意見可能足以阻止委員會(huì)審議存在海上或陸上爭(zhēng)議的劃界案。但委員會(huì)《議事規(guī)則》附件一的第3條建議，為暫時(shí)回避爭(zhēng)端，沿海國(guó)可就其一部分的大陸架提出劃界案，以避免妨害以后國(guó)家間在大陸架任何其他部分劃定界限所涉及的問題。該規(guī)定促使一些沿海國(guó)為回避爭(zhēng)議，僅僅就無爭(zhēng)議的部分先行提出外大陸架劃界申請(qǐng)。目前已提交的77個(gè)劃界案中，部分劃界案就高達(dá)46個(gè)，占全部劃界案的60%。

除了避免爭(zhēng)端之外，部分申請(qǐng)的另一個(gè)好處是沿海國(guó)可以通過集中力量，增加申請(qǐng)獲得委員會(huì)認(rèn)可的可能性。外大陸架的劃定涉及到復(fù)雜的法律、科學(xué)和技術(shù)問題。由于在某一問題上經(jīng)常存在科學(xué)認(rèn)識(shí)上的差異，因此原則上任何申請(qǐng)都不可避免地存在一定程度的不確定性。而如果申請(qǐng)國(guó)的主張與審議時(shí)小組委員會(huì)的意見有所差別，除非該國(guó)提供充分的證據(jù)，否則很難得到委員會(huì)的認(rèn)可。在這種情況下，一國(guó)先對(duì)有充分證據(jù)的海域提出部分申請(qǐng)無疑是明智的，尤其對(duì)于面臨科學(xué)、技術(shù)和財(cái)政等多方面問題的發(fā)展中國(guó)家特別適用。

（三）南北極大陸架劃界引起普遍關(guān)注

對(duì)南極正式提出領(lǐng)土要求的國(guó)家有7個(gè)，即澳大利亞、新西蘭、阿根廷、智利、法國(guó)、英國(guó)、挪威，主要針對(duì)的是南緯60°到南極點(diǎn)的扇形區(qū)域。目前，對(duì)南極領(lǐng)土提出主張的七國(guó)中，除智利僅提交關(guān)于大陸架外部界限的初步信息外，澳大利亞、新西蘭、挪威、法國(guó)、英國(guó)和阿根廷均已向委員會(huì)正式提交了劃界案或部分劃界案。特別是，澳大利亞、挪威、阿根廷三國(guó)在其劃界案中都對(duì)南極洲領(lǐng)土主權(quán)及南極洲大陸架提出明確主張，澳大利亞、阿根廷和英國(guó)還有部分地區(qū)的大陸架主張延伸至南緯60°以南，即延伸至南極條約體系的適用范圍內(nèi)。眾所周知，南緯60°以南的南極地區(qū)，是南極條約體系的適用范圍?！豆s》確立了12海里的領(lǐng)海和200海里的專屬經(jīng)濟(jì)區(qū)，并建立和發(fā)展了大陸架及國(guó)際海底區(qū)域制度。但這些制度如生搬硬套至南極地區(qū)，無疑會(huì)對(duì)南極條約體系中既存的法律規(guī)定構(gòu)成挑戰(zhàn)。

北極地區(qū)的法律制度和南極不同，并沒有一個(gè)完整的條約體系?，F(xiàn)行有關(guān)北極地區(qū)的國(guó)際法規(guī)只局限于解決某一具體問題，尚無將北極地區(qū)或北冰洋作為一個(gè)整體加以管理的法律。北冰洋周邊國(guó)家主要有俄羅斯、加拿大、美國(guó)、丹麥、挪威、芬蘭、瑞典和冰島8個(gè)國(guó)家，但真正意義上的北冰洋沿海國(guó)則只有俄羅斯、加拿大、美國(guó)、丹麥、挪威等組成A5集團(tuán)的5個(gè)國(guó)家。北冰洋沿海國(guó)家中除美國(guó)以外其他均為《公約》締約國(guó)。俄羅斯、挪威、丹麥均提交了涉及北冰洋的劃界案（圖3）。其中，俄羅斯劃界案在2002年被委員會(huì)認(rèn)為科學(xué)證據(jù)不足未獲通過，但近10多年來俄在北冰洋開展了大規(guī)模科學(xué)調(diào)查，并基于大量地質(zhì)和地球物理證據(jù)于2015年8月提交了其修訂案，其主張的外大陸架面積不減反增。挪威劃界案涉及北冰洋大陸架的是斯瓦爾巴群島，該劃界案已獲委員會(huì)審議通過。丹麥劃界案分別涉及格陵蘭東北部和北部，特別是2014年12月提交的格陵蘭北部劃界案，其主張外大陸架向北越過北極極點(diǎn)延伸至俄羅斯的200海里線。此外，加拿大一直宣稱已完成北冰洋劃界案編制，將于近期擇機(jī)提交。美國(guó)盡管尚未批準(zhǔn)加入《公約》，但也絕對(duì)不會(huì)放棄擴(kuò)展其大陸架的權(quán)利。因此，隨著A5集團(tuán)各國(guó)劃界案的提交，北冰洋外大陸架劃界將日趨白熱化。

圖3 北冰洋外大陸架劃界形勢(shì)圖

（四）洋脊規(guī)則成為外大陸架劃界中最復(fù)雜問題

脊?fàn)畹暮５赘叩氐匦?地貌在深海洋盆及大陸邊緣普遍存在，其面積約占海洋總面積的33%以上。上文已經(jīng)提及，《公約》對(duì)大陸架的定義，考慮了各種海脊及其與陸架區(qū)的關(guān)系，提出了深洋洋脊、海底洋脊和海底高地等3類海脊，并對(duì)這3類海脊的大陸架權(quán)利做了規(guī)定。但由于海脊的多樣性和地質(zhì)特征的復(fù)雜性，加上《公約》對(duì)這3個(gè)術(shù)語未給出準(zhǔn)確的科學(xué)定義或較明確的判別方法，導(dǎo)致在實(shí)際應(yīng)用過程中，海脊問題成為外大陸架劃界中最復(fù)雜的問題，也為沿海國(guó)利用海脊規(guī)則爭(zhēng)取本國(guó)利益最大化提供了機(jī)會(huì)。從所提交的劃界案來看，絕大多數(shù)沿海國(guó)都把成因各異的洋脊、海嶺、海隆、海丘、海臺(tái)等各種各樣的海脊當(dāng)做大陸邊自然組成部分的海底高地處理，以便最大限度地?cái)U(kuò)展本國(guó)大陸架，對(duì)本應(yīng)屬于國(guó)際海底區(qū)域的部分提出主張，侵占全人類的共同利益。

盡管目前學(xué)界對(duì)海脊規(guī)則的應(yīng)用開展了探討并形成初步共識(shí)，但實(shí)踐中關(guān)于脊屬性的界定，還是十分復(fù)雜，委員會(huì)在審議具體劃界案時(shí)，對(duì)涉及的脊一般采取逐案審議的方法，對(duì)各類脊屬性的認(rèn)定所采用的原則也不完全一致。從委員會(huì)審議結(jié)果來看，對(duì)于大陸分裂形成的微大陸，由于其古老陸殼的存在，不管其規(guī)模大小，一般都將其認(rèn)定為海底高地；對(duì)于海底擴(kuò)張形成的洋中脊，由于其百分百的洋殼屬性，一般都將其認(rèn)定為深洋洋脊。但對(duì)于成因多源的各類復(fù)合型脊就復(fù)雜得多，特別是沿匯聚型大陸邊緣形成的脊和增生脊，目前爭(zhēng)議還比較大。此外，對(duì)于各類脊大陸架權(quán)利的認(rèn)定，委員會(huì)還綜合考慮了脊的地形地貌特征、地質(zhì)屬性以及地質(zhì)與地球物理支撐證據(jù)。對(duì)于地殼性質(zhì)明顯、地質(zhì)證據(jù)充足的脊，首先考慮的是脊的地質(zhì)屬性一致性；但對(duì)于地殼組成和成因演化復(fù)雜的脊，往往只能選擇考慮地形連續(xù)性。總體上，委員會(huì)能堅(jiān)持《公約》基本原則，遵循《公約》制定不同洋脊大陸架權(quán)利規(guī)定的初衷，做到嚴(yán)格把關(guān)和公平公正，維護(hù)了國(guó)際海底區(qū)域利益和國(guó)際社會(huì)的穩(wěn)定，這定將對(duì)未來世界海洋劃界格局產(chǎn)生深遠(yuǎn)的影響。

六、結(jié) 語

200海里以外大陸架劃界是《公約》大陸架制度下運(yùn)用科學(xué)證據(jù)劃定沿海國(guó)大陸架外部界限的科學(xué)與法律交匯的活動(dòng)。全球大陸邊緣地貌形態(tài)和地質(zhì)特征的復(fù)雜性，加上沿海國(guó)之間的歷史及法律關(guān)系各異，造就了目前復(fù)雜多樣的劃界案。當(dāng)前，外大陸架劃界是沿海國(guó)利用《公約》合法拓展其管轄權(quán)的重大機(jī)遇。從15年來所提交的劃界案來看，大部分沿海國(guó)都對(duì)《公約》相關(guān)規(guī)則和條款盡最大努力進(jìn)行挖掘和演繹，以便最大限度地?cái)U(kuò)展其大陸架范圍。因此，隨著外大陸架劃界案的提交和審議的深入，新的科學(xué)和法律問題層出不窮，尤其是洋脊規(guī)則適用等問題。

沿海國(guó)的劃界實(shí)踐以及委員會(huì)對(duì)劃界案的審議，都是關(guān)于外大陸架劃界科學(xué)與法律問題的重要實(shí)踐。沿海國(guó)在劃界案中采用的基本原則、主要方法、數(shù)據(jù)資料支撐等，委員會(huì)審議秉持的主要原則、審議的關(guān)鍵問題、提出的意見建議和理由等都是今后大陸架劃界和劃界案審議工作重要的參考和法理依據(jù)。因此，我們應(yīng)加大相關(guān)科學(xué)技術(shù)和法理問題研究，及時(shí)總結(jié)大陸架制度理論與實(shí)踐的最新發(fā)展，以便為我國(guó)今后外大陸架劃界和積極應(yīng)對(duì)侵害我國(guó)海洋權(quán)益的他國(guó)劃界主張?zhí)峁﹨⒖己徒梃b。

I. Introduction

According to Article 76 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), the continental shelf of a coastal State comprises the seabed and subsoil of the submarine areas that extend beyond its territorial sea throughout the natural prolongation of its land territory to the outer edge of the continental margin, or to a distance of 200 nautical miles (nm) from the baselines from which the breadth of the territorial sea is measured, where the outer edge of the continental margin does not extend up to that distance; and a coastal State may claim a continental shelf beyond 200 nm if the natural prolongation of its land territory extends beyond 200 nm from the baselines of its territorial sea.④China Institute for Marine Af f airs, SOA ed., United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (Chinese-English), Beijing: China Ocean Press, 1996.In light of the UNCLOS provision above, the continental shelf of a coastal State may, based on the geomorphological and geological conditions of its continental margin, extend to a distance of 350 nm from the baselines from which the breadth of the territorial sea is measured, or a distance of 100 nm from the 2500 metre isobath. Additionally, UNCLOS Annex II, Article 4 provides that, where a coastal State intends to establish, in accordance with Article 76, the outer limits of its continental shelf beyond 200 nm, it shall submit particulars of such limits to the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf (hereinafter “CLCS” or “Commission”) along with supporting scientifc and technical data (hereinafter “Submission”) as soon as possible.

To implement UNCLOS Article 76, the CLCS was formally established in March, 1997. Pursuant to UNCLOS, apart from providing scientifc and technical advice concerning the outer limits of the continental shelf to coastal States, the primary functions of CLCS also include considering submissions made by the coastal States concerning the outer limits of the continental shelf in areas where those limits extend beyond 200 nm and making recommendations. The limits of the shelf established by a coastal State on the basis of these recommendations shall be fnal and binding.

The Rules of Procedure of the Commission on the Limits of the ContinentalShelf, hereinafter referred to as “Rules of Procedure”, was adopted at its thirteenth session, held in 2004. It replaced the Modus Operandi of the Commission②Document CLCS/L.3.adopted at its second session, held in 1997, and the Internal Procedure of the Subcommission of the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf,③Document CLCS/L.12.adopted at its ninth session, held in 2001. Since the Commission deals with things that have never been done before, its Rules of Procedure is being added and amended during the gradual accumulation of practice pertaining to extended continental shelf delineation. The revised Rules of Procedure was adopted at the 21st session of CLCS in April of 2008 and basically defned its modus operandi and rules of procedure.④Document CLCS/40/Rev.1.At its ffth session held on 13 May 1999, the CLCS adopted a series of important scientific documents, including the Scientific and Technical Guidelines of the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf (hereinafter “Scientific and Technical Guidelines”).⑤Document CLCS/11.The adoption of the Rules of Procedure and the Scientifc and Technical Guidelines implies that the CLCS was well prepared to receive submissions from coastal States. Noting that it was only after the adoption by the Commission of its Scientifc and Technical Guidelines that States had before them the basic documents concerning submissions, the eleventh meeting of States Parties of UNCLOS decided that in the case of a State Party for which UNCLOS entered into force before 13 May 1999, the ten-year time period referred to in Article 4 of Annex II to UNCLOS shall be understood to have commenced on 13 May 1999, when the Scientific and Technical Guidelines was adopted.⑥D(zhuǎn)ocument SPLOS/72.That is to say, the deadline for submissions from all these coastal States would be 13 May 2009.

II. An Overview of the Filing of Submissions to CLCS

On 20 December 2001, Russia became the frst to forward its submission to the CLCS; it was the frst submission that CLCS received upon its establishment. As of 30 June 2016, the total number of submissions filed had come to 81, including revised submissions made by Russia, Brazil and Barbados (Fig. 1).⑦At http://www.un.org/depts/los/clcs_new/commission_submissions.htm, 18 October 2016.In terms of the fling time, 50 submissions were made before the deadline (13 May2009), accounting for 62% of the total fled submissions, and 31 after the deadline, accounting for 38% of submissions. Of the⑧Joint Submission by France, Ireland, Spain and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in the Area of the Celtic Sea and the Bay of Biscay, Joint Submission by the Republic of Mauritius and the Republic of Seychelles in the Region of the Mascarene Plateau, Joint Submission by the Federated States of Micronesia, Papua New Guinea and Solomon Islands concerning the Ontong Java Plateau, Joint Submission by Malaysia and Viet Nam in the Southern Part of the South China Sea, Joint Submission by France and South Africa in the Area of the Crozet Archipelago and the Prince Edward Islands, Joint Submission by Tuvalu, France and New Zealand (Tokelau) in Respect of the Area of the Robbie Ridge, and Joint Submission by Cabo Verde, The Gambia, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Mauritania, Senegal and Sierra Leone in Respect of Areas in the Atlantic Ocean Adjacent to the Coast of West Africa.1 submissions, four submissions were revised, seven were jointly fled,848 were partial, and fve were added with supplementary information before being considered by the Commission.⑨Submission by Fiji, Submission by the Cook Islands concerning the Manihiki Plateau, Joint Submission by France and South Africa in the Area of the Crozet Archipelago and the Prince Edward Islands, Submission by South Africa in Respect of the Mainland of the Territory of the Republic of South Africa, and Joint Submission by the Federated States of Micronesia, Papua New Guinea and Solomon Islands concerning the Ontong Java Plateau.In terms of submissions by States, these 81 submissions were made by 77 States, some of which fled more than one submission in dif f erent forms. Specifcally, France made seven submissions (including three joint submissions), the UK fled four (including one joint submission), Demark filed four, Ireland and Spain each filed three (including one joint submission each), and Norway, Mexico and Tonga each fled two; additionally, New Zealand, Mauritius, South Africa, Micronesia, Vietnam and Seychelles each fled two (including one joint submission each).

Excluding the four revised submissions, 68 of the remaining 77 submissions claimed areas of extended continental shelves in polygon, forming encircled areas. However, nine submissions only established the outer limits of continental shelves, without forming any encircled areas, including the Submissions by Suriname, by the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Respect of Hatton Rockall Area, by Viet Nam in North Area, by the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Respect of the Falkland Islands, and of South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands, by Tonga in the Eastern Part of the Kermadec Ridge, by China in Part of the East China Sea, by the Republic of Korea, by Nicaragua in the Southwestern Part of the Caribbean Sea, and by France in Respect of Saint-Pierre-et-Miquelon. Without forming any encircled polygons, it is impossible to calculate the areas of the extended continental shelves established by these nine submissions. The area of the extended continental shelves claimed by the remaining68 submissions comes to more than 30,000,000 km2.

Fig. 1 The Global Situation on the Delineation of Extended Continental Shelves (Based on the Data of the Submissions Released on the Of fi cial Website of CLCS)

Recognizing that some coastal States, in particular developing countries, including small island developing States, continue to face particular challenges in submitting information to the Commission in the ten-year time period referred to in Article 4 of Annex II to the UNCLOS, the Eighteenth Meeting of States Parties decided that the time period referred to in Article 4 of Annex II to UNCLOS may be satisfed by submitting to the Secretary-General preliminary information indicative of the outer limits of the continental shelf beyond 200 nm and a description of the status of preparation and intended date of making a submission (hereinafter“preliminary information”).⑩Document SPLOS/183.

Up to 30 June 2016, 44 States have submitted 47 copies of preliminary information.①At http://www.un.org/depts/los/clcs_new/commission_preliminary.htm, 18 October 2016.Specifically, 39 States submitted 42 copies of preliminary information before the provided deadline (13 May 2009). Thereafter, Equatorial Guinea, Comoros, Vanuatu, Nicaragua, Canada and Morocco, which are not subject to the said deadline, submitted their preliminary information. Among the 47 copies ofpreliminary information submitted, three are joint preliminary information.②Preliminary Information Submitted by Benin and Togo, Preliminary Information Submitted by Fiji and Solomon Islands on the Charlotte Bank Region, and Preliminary Information Submitted by Fiji, Solomon Islands and Vanuatu on the North Fiji Basin.Plus, four of the submitting States are developed States, including France, Spain, New Zealand and Canada, and the remaining 40 States are developing States. France, Mauritius, Togo and Solomon Islands each submitted two copies of preliminary information.

A comparison between the fling of preliminary information and submissions to CLCS reveals that, 25 of the 44 States which have submitted their preliminary information, or 57% of these States, have formally presented 18 submissions to the Commission, including the Joint Submission by Cabo Verde, the Gambia, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Mauritania, Senegal and Sierra Leone in Respect of Areas in the Atlantic Ocean Adjacent to the Coast of West Africa.

III. Modes that the CLCS Adopted to Treat Submissions

The CLCS considers submissions in the order filed. By 30 June 2016, the Commission had completed the consideration of 24 submissions, including two revised submissions by Russia and Barbados, and published its summaries of recommendations on the website of the United States.③At http://www.un.org/depts/los/clcs_new/commission_submissions.htm, 18 October 2016.Additionally, two draft recommendations are being reviewed by the Commission; ten submissions, including the newly-fled Partial Revised Submission by Russian Federation in Respect of the Arctic Ocean, are being considered by the subcommission; and the consideration of another seven submissions have been deferred. To date, the Commission has decided not to consider submissions under two circumstances. First, in cases where a submission concerns territorial claims in the Antarctic, the Commission refuses to consider the submission. For example, the Commission refused to consider the Submissions by Australia, by Argentina, and by Norway because they were pertinent to the provisions, as contained in the Antarctic Treaty, banning ownership claims to the area south of 60o South Latitude, and the Commission is not empowered to deal with matters pertaining to the Antarctic Treaty. Second, in cases where the submissions made by two States concern the same area or in cases where there is a land or maritime dispute, the Commission refuses to consider the submission. Examples of such case are the Submissions by Argentina and by theUK. Since these submissions involve the sovereignty issue of the Malvinas Islands (also known as “Falkland Islands” in Britain), the Commission decided not to consider them. These results of consideration indicate that the Commission often adopts the following three modes to treat submissions:④Li Jinrong, Luo Tingting and Wan Fangfang, A Study of the Review Process and Development Trend about the Delineation of the Continental Shelf beyond 200 Nautical Miles, International Forum, No. 3, 2014, pp. 37～42. (in Chinese)

(1) To consider a submission in its complete form. If the area claimed by a submission does not involve land or maritime delimitation disputes, that is to say, if the Commission fails to receive any note verbale in response to the submission, by invoking Article 5(a) of Annex I to the Rules of Procedure, the Commission will establish a subcommission to consider whether the outer limits of continental shelves proposed by a coastal State is well grounded. Then it will decide to approve, partly approve or deny, in the form of recommendations, the claims to extended continental shelves made by the coastal State. Examples of this case include: the Submission by Russian Federation and its Partial Revised Submission in Respect of the Okhotsk Sea, the Submission by Barbados and its Revised Submission, the Submissions by Brazil, by Ireland in Respect of Porcupine Abyssal Plain, by New Zealand, by Norway in the North East Atlantic and the Arctic, by Mexico in Respect of the Western Polygon in the Gulf of Mexico, by United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Respect of Ascension Island, by Indonesia in Respect of North West of Sumatra Island, by Suriname, by France in Respect of the Areas of the French Antilles and the Kerguelen Islands, by the Philippines in the Benham Rise Region, by Ghana, by Denmark in the Area North of the Faroe Islands, and by Pakistan, as well as the Joint Submissions by France, Ireland, Spain and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in the Area of the Celtic Sea and the Bay of Biscay, and by the Republic of Mauritius and the Republic of Seychelles. The Commission has completed the consideration of the submissions listed above and made recommendations thereon.

(2) To defer the consideration of a submission to some time later. There are cases where States concerned have delivered notes verbales in response to a submission, by invoking Article 5(a) of Annex I to the Rules of Procedure, but the submission is still waiting for its turn to be considered. Considering that the dispute is currently being or will likely be solved by the States concerned, the Commission would decide not to consider the submission for the time being, and may reconsiderit when its turn arrives; if the dispute remains unresolved when its turn comes, the submission may continue waiting until no protest is raised by the States concerned. For instance, the consideration of the Submission by Myanmar was put of f due to Bangladesh’s protest; the consideration of the Submission by Yemen in Respect of South East of Socotra Island was deferred because of Somalia’s opposition; the consideration of the Submission by Fiji was put of f owing to the objection from Vanuatu; and the consideration of the Submission by the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Respect of Hatton Rockall Area and the Submission by Ireland in Respect of Hatton Rockall Area was postponed due to the protest from Iceland and Denmark; the consideration of the Joint Submission by Malaysia and Viet Nam in the Southern Part of the South China Sea was put of f because China and the Philippines submitted notes verbales, expressing their opposing views; and the consideration of the Submission by Kenya was postponed because of Somali’s objections.

(3) To consider certain portion(s) of a submission. As described above, in cases where a submission fled by a coastal State concerns claims for territory in the Antarctic, or involves land or maritime disputes, the Commission will, on a case-by-case basis, not consider it or postpone its consideration, or only consider the portion free from disputes relating to the Antarctic and land or maritime disputes. For example, the Commission refused to consider the parts of Submission by Australia related to the Antarctic territory; it only chose to review nine regions, including Argo region, Great Australian Bight region, Kerguelen Plateau region, Lord Howe Rise region, Macquarie Ridge region, Naturaliste Plateau region, Three Kings Ridge region, and Wallaby and Exmouth Plateaus region. Plus, the Commission did not consider the portions of the Submission by Argentina associated with the Antarctic territory and the Malvinas Islands involving territorial disputes, merely deliberating the northern sector of Argentine passive continental margin and the western sector of the combined continental margin. In addition, the Commission decided not to consider, for now, the portion of the Submission by France in Respect of the Areas of French Guiana and New Caledonia that involved an area to the south east of New Caledonia, only to consider the area of French Guiana and the area to the south west of New Caledonia. Additionally, the portion of the Submission by Japan involving Okinotorishima Rocks has not been considered by the Commission, which merely examined and reviewed the Minami-Io To Island Region, the Minami-Tori Shima Island Region, the Mogi Seamount Region, the Ogasawara Plateau Region, the Southern Oki-Daito Ridge Region, andthe Shikoku Basin Region.⑤Fang Yinxia, Tang Yong and Fu Jie, Summary of Recommendations by the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf with Regard to Japan’s Submission: A Commentary, China Oceans Law Review, No. 2, 2013, pp. 110～129.

IV. The Main Issues That the CLCS Examines during Its Consideration of Submissions

According to the Rules of Procedure, the full text of the recommendations proposed by the Commission on a submission is kept confdential; therefore, it is difficult for us to get a complete picture of the Commission’s deliberation of the submissions. However, the summaries of recommendations are duly publicized on the website of the United Nations, which can give us a rough idea of the deliberation of the submissions. A close look at the publicized summaries of recommendations shows that, when considering a submission, the Commission chiefy examines the following matters: whether it has the authority to consider the submission, the geological and geographical description of the region concerned, the natural prolongation of the land mass of the coastal State, and the determination of the location of the foot of the continental slope (FOS), the outer edge of the continental margin, and the outer limits of continental shelf. Upon the establishment of a subcommission, during its examination of submissions, the subcommission primarily evaluates the following issues: whether the base and the foot of the continental slope are appropriately located, whether the sediment thickness of 1% is reliably determined, whether the constraint line constructed at 100 nm from the 2500 metre isobaths is applicable, and whether the points on the 200 nm lines are appropriately identifed.

A. The Appropriateness of the Base and the Foot of the Continental Slope

The Commission recognizes the FOS as an important geomorphological feature. Plus, the two formulae lines employed to extend continental shelf under the UNCLOS are determined on the basis of the FOS. Therefore, the FOS serves as the basis for entitlement to the extended continental shelf and a critical factor to be reviewed by the Commission. Pursuant to the Scientifc and Technical Guidelines,the FOS can be established through two main methods. First, it may be identifed as the point of maximum change in the gradient at its base, based on the geological and geomorphological features of the continental margin. Second, evidence to the contrary to the general rule may be invoked to defne the location of the FOS. That is, the Commission may use the continental-oceanic transitional zone, which was determined on the basis of geological and geophysical evidence and other sources of evidence available, to locate the FOS, when the geomorphological evidence given by the maximum change in the gradient can not reliably locate the FOS. Currently, in almost all of the submissions which have been considered by the Commission, the frst method is applied to determine the FOS, that is, the point of maximum change in the gradient at its base is selected as the FOS.

When considering the Submission by the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Respect of Ascension Island, the Commission questioned the base of the continental slope and the location of the FOS established by the UK; however, the two parties failed to reach a consensus after communications. The UK regarded the rift valley of the spreading axis and the deeps of associated fracture zones as parts of the continental slope of Ascension Island. However, the Commission argued that ocean spreading structures, which were normally part of the deep ocean foor, could only form the continental slopes of island landmasses in cases where such structures formed part of the discrete seafoor highs from which the island edifces rose. This was not the case for Ascension Island, as its edifce was not morphologically connected to any such discrete seafloor high (Fig. 2). The recommendations provided by the Commission pointed out that, the rugged seafloor between the Ascension Island volcanic edifice and the axis of the Mid-Atlantic Ridge was part of the normal deep ocean foor, rather than the continental shelf of the Ascension Island. As a result, the FOS identifed by the UK in this area was rejected by the Commission.⑥At http://www.un.org/Depts/los/clcs_new/submissions_fles/gbr08/gbr_asc_isl_rec_summ. pdf, 18 October 2016.

Fig. 2 The Location Map of the FOS of Ascension Island Recommended by the CLCS17

B. The Reliability of the Sediment Thickness of 1%

The sediment thickness rule is one of two equally valid formulae for entitlement to the extended continental shelf and the delineation of its outer limits. In this connection, the Commission conducts strict examinations. The determination of the sediment thickness formula line relates to the identifcation of the sediment/ basement interface, the calculation of sediment thickness and the variability of sediment distribution, as well as other technical issues. The thickness of sediments can be determined by means of direct sampling and indirect methods. Since direct sampling, such as drilling, is very costly, presently, the sediment thickness, in all the submissions filed to the Commission, is indirectly calculated from seismic data. This method involves issues like the identification of the sediment, the reliability of velocity analysis, and depth conversion. In this case, because of uncertainties involved in the procedure, inaccuracies in sediment thickness could typically be 10%. For example, when deliberating the Submission by Barbados, the Commission objected to the position of Gardiner point 12 (GP12) identified in the submission. Considering large extrapolation distances were involved in the Barbados’ determination of Gardiner point, the Commission requested that Barbados provide any additional data available to support the extrapolation. In this case, Barbados utilized the information from a new sonobuoy to provide additional support for the extrapolation of the velocity model and of f ered a revised location of GP12 determined on the basis of a seismic line. Eventually, this relocated GP12was approved by the Commission.⑧At http://www.un.org/Depts/los/clcs_new/submissions_fles/brb_10rev2011/brb_10rev2011 _summary_recommendations.pdf, 18 October 2016.

C. The Applicability of the Constraint Line Constructed at 100 NM from the 2500 Metre Isobath

Article 76 of UNCLOS sub-classed the highs into three legal types: oceanic ridges of the deep ocean foor, submarine ridges, and submarine elevations, each of which has a dif f erent entitlement to continental shelf. Specifcally, oceanic ridges of the deep ocean foor are not entitled to an extended continental shelf. In the case of submarine ridges, the outer limit of the continental shelf shall not exceed 350 nm from the baselines from which the breadth of the territorial sea is measured. Furthermore, in the case of submarine elevations that are natural components of the continental margin, the continental shelf can extend up to 350 nm from the baselines or 100 nm from the 2,500 metre isobath. Article 76 prescribed the entitlement to continental shelf for these three types of ridges; however, it failed to provide precise defnitions for the three terms or an exact method to distinguish them. Due to the uncertainty in the UNCLOS provisions concerning ridges, Scientifc and Technical Guidelines also failed to of f er a fnal solution, which has attracted the attention of many scholars. For example, Symonds, a former member of CLCS, and other scholars, when discussing the UNCLOS provision with respect to ridges, classified ridges into two categories: ridges in divergent settings and ridges in convergent settings. They contended that the classification of ridges should take into account the geological origins and tectonic settings of the ridges, along with other geological factors.⑨Philip A. Symonds, Mike F. Coffin, George Taft and Hideo Kagami, Ridge Issues, in Peter J. Cook and Chris M. Carleton eds., Continental Shelf Limits: The Scientific and Legal Interface, New York: Oxford University Press, 2000, pp. 285～307.In contrast, Brekke, also a former member of CLCS, when classifying the ridges, did not consider the geological forming process of ridges, but he did take note of the locations of ridges related to the continental margin.⑩Harald Brekke and Philip A. Symonds, The Ridge Provisions of Article 76 of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, in Myron H. Nordquist, John Norton Moore and Tomas H. Heidar eds., Legal and Scientific Aspects of Continental Shelf Limits, Leiden/Boston: Martinus Nijhof f Publishers, 2004, pp. 169～199.The provisions of UNCLOS should be interpreted in good faith. In this connection, the authors believe that only the ridges which are continuous, bothin morphology and geology with the land mass and submerged prolongation of a coastal State, are submarine elevations. Ridges which are discontinuous in morphology with the continental margins are oceanic ridges. Those ridges which are continuous in morphology, but discontinuous in geology, are submarine ridges.①Wang Weiguo, Geological Structures of Ridges with Relation to the Definition of Three Types of Seafoor Highs Stipulated in Article 76, Acta Oceanologica Sinica, Vol. 30, No. 5, 2011, pp. 125～137.Currently, given that ridges are not precisely defned, we cannot fnd any clear principles and methods to identify them. Besides, when treating submissions made by different States, the Commission’s views are not completely consistent with respect to the issue of the features of ridges.

For example, during the consideration of the Submission by Australia, the Commission questioned whether the Williams Ridge and the Joey Rise could be classifed as submarine elevations in the sense of UNCLOS Article 76. Since the data submitted for the Williams Ridge and Joey Rise gave only indirect evidence of their natures and origins, the Commission held that their geological origin still remained unresolved and they should not be recognized as submarine elevations. Additionally, the Commission did not agree with the location of the fxed points on continental shelf outer limit line, established by Australia, in accordance with constraint lines at 100 nm from the 2500 metre isobath.②At http://www.un.org/Depts/los/clcs_new/submissions_fles/aus04/Aus_Recommendations_ FINAL.pdf, 18 October 2016.This example shows that the Commission, when evaluating the three types of ridges above, took into account both morphological and geological continuity, which is consistent with the original purpose of UNCLOS, to provide that different types of ridges have different entitlements to continental shelf.

D. The Appropriateness of the Points on the 200 NM Lines

Article 76(7) of the UNCLOS states that, the coastal State shall delineate the outer limits of its continental shelf, where that shelf extends beyond 200 nm from the baselines from which the breadth of the territorial sea is measured, by straight lines not exceeding 60 nm in length, connecting fxed points, defned by coordinates of latitude and longitude. Based on the article, in order to maximize its benefts, Australia, in its submission, used lines not more than 60 nm in length to join fixed points on the formula line to any fixed point on the 200 nm line todelineate the outer limits of its continental shelf in each region it claimed. However, the Commission was of the view that this extended continental shelf delineated by Australia exceeded the limits provided for in UNCLOS. The Commission stated that the determination of the last fxed point of the outer limits of the continental shelf should be established by the intersection of the formula line and the 200 nm line. Consequently, the Commission disagreed with the determination of the points on the 200 nm line in all the regions submitted by Australia in its submission. In a similar manner, the Commission held that, in the Macquarie Ridge Region and the Three Kings Ridge Region, Australia should not use straight lines not exceeding 60 nm in length to determine the points on the Australian-New Zealand boundary line.③At http://www.un.org/Depts/los/clcs_new/submissions_fles/aus04/Aus_Recommendations_ FINAL.pdf, 18 October 2016.

E. The Appropriateness of the Points beyond the 350 NM Lines

This factor is mainly considered in joint submissions. When reviewing the Joint Submission by France, Ireland, Spain and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, the Commission noted that the proposed fixed point FP 30 was located within the Spanish 350 nm constraint line but beyond all other 350 nm constraint lines. Further, the Commission contended that FP 30 was determined based on the extension of the Irish, rather than the Spanish, continental margin; therefore, it should be subject to the 350 nm line constructed from the baselines from which the territorial sea of Ireland was measured. As a result, the point FP 30 should lie within or on the Irish 350 nm constraint line. Following the Commission’s recommendation, the four coastal States revised their outer limits, which were eventually approved by the Commission after deliberation.④At http://www.un.org/Depts/los/clcs_new/submissions_fles/frgbires06/fsu_clcs_recommen dations_summary2009.pdf, 18 October 2016.

V. Features and Development Tendency of Extended Continental Shelf Delineation

Abundant natural resources can be found on the extended continental shelf. And UNCLOS Article 77(1) explicitly provides that “the coastal State exercisesover the continental shelf sovereign rights for purpose of exploring it and exploiting its natural resources.” Obviously, the delineation of the outer limits of the continental shelf beyond 200 nm, pertains to the sovereign rights of coastal States and also directly relates to their economic benefts. Due to the rich natural resources on the extended continental shelf, and the ef f ect of declaring sovereignty that may arise from the fling of submissions, States have taken the application for extended continental shelf more and more seriously and invested more deeply in this cause known as “Blue Enclosure Movement”. Especially in the 15 years since Russia made the frst submission to the CLCS in 2001, state practice with regards to the delineation of extended continental shelf and the modes in which the Commission considers submissions have developed gradually. In terms of state practice, initially, coastal States rushed to present their submissions in order to meet the deadline, but now, more and more States are taking the initiatives to protect, in an all-round and multi-level way, their maritime rights and interests, through fling submissions to the CLCS, which has highlighted and also in some ways exacerbated the maritime delimitation disputes in the world. In terms of the practice of the Commission, the procedures and the rules of the Commission to consider and review the submissions have gradually become stable and fxed, which in turn af f ect, more or less, state practice in respect of extended continental shelf delineation. Overall, the practice with regards to extended continental shelf delineation in the world has shown the following features.

A. Large Overlapping Claims

The 77 submissions as received by the CLCS exhibit serious overlapping claims of extended continental shelves. The areas claimed by 47 dif f erent States are overlapping to varied degrees (Table 1), and some are seriously overlapping. For example, the extended continental shelves claimed by Bangladesh, India, Myanmar and Sri Lanka, in the Bay of Bengal, almost overlap completely. Additionally, the continental shelf claimed by the UK for the Malvinas Islands is almost fully overlapping with the one claimed by Argentina, and the continental shelves in the Hatton Rockall Area claimed by the UK, Ireland, Iceland and Demark are also overlapping. In the case of the East China Sea, apart from the Sino-Japanese disputes centered on the sovereignty of Diaoyu Islands, South Korea also raised its claim to an extended continental shelf in this area. In the South China Sea, bordering States, including China, Viet Nam, Malaysia and the Philippines, havedisputes centered on the sovereignty of the Nansha Islands. In practice, these overlapping claims are originated from the sovereignty disputes and maritime delimitation conflicts that have already existed in these sea areas, which have resurfaced by virtue of extended continental shelf delineation. The Commission definitely will not consider some disputable submissions. Nevertheless, the submitting State has achieved the purpose of declaring its sovereignty by filing submissions before the Commission, whether its submissions would be considered or not. In this sense, declaration of sovereignty could be said to be one of the main reasons that compel the coastal State to forward submissions to the Commission.

Table 1 Statistics on the Overlapping Claims for Extended Continental Shelves

18Ghana vs. NigeriaGulf of Guinea 19Kenya vs. SomaliaContinental Margin of East Africa 20Maldives vs. Sri LankaNorth Atlantic 21Bengal vs. Burma vs. Sri Lanka vs. IndiaBay of Bengal 22Mozambique vs. South AfricaSouthwest Indian Ocean 23Portugal vs. SpainNorthern Waters of f Canary Islands 24Portugal vs. Seven West African StatesSouthern Waters of f Canary Islands 25Japan vs. PalauPhilippine Sea 26Somalia vs. TanzaniaContinental Margin of East Africa 27Somalia vs. YemenContinental Margin of East Africa 28China vs. KoreaEast China Sea

B. Many States Choose to Make Partial or Joint Submissions

Considering the serious overlapping claims, in practice, if a submission involves delimitation disputes or other relevant maritime or land disputes, the States concerned would deliver notes verbales to express their concerns or protests, which suffice to prevent the Commission from reviewing the submissions involving such disputes. Rule 3 of Annex I to the Rules of Procedure states that a submission may be made by a coastal State for a portion of its continental shelf in order not to prejudice questions relating to the delimitation of boundaries between States in any other portion or portions of the continental shelf. This rule encouraged some coastal States to frst fle a submission for the portion of continental shelf free from disputes in order to avoid causing disputes and conficts with neighboring States. Hence, it is not surprising to fnd that, up to now, 46 partial submissions have been fled, which accounts for 60% of the 77 submissions received by the Commission.

Apart from avoiding disputes, partial submissions, which have acquired the full attention of the submitting States, have more of a chance to get approved by the Commission. The delineation of extended continental shelves relates to complex legal, scientifc and technical issues. Given the discrepancy of scientifc understanding on an issue, any submission, in theory, is inevitably uncertain to some extent. However, if the claims of a submitting State dif f er from the views held by subcommission after deliberation, it would be difficult for the submission to get approved by the Commission, unless that State provides sufficient evidence. In thiscase, undoubtedly, it is wise for States to first make submissions for the portion of continental shelf in which evidence is sufficient, especially for the developing States inficted with scientifc, technical, fnancial and other problems.

C. The Delineation of Antarctic and Arctic Continental Shelves Has Generated Widespread Concerns

Seven States, including Australia, New Zealand, Argentina, Chile, France, the UK and Norway, have officially claimed territory in the Antarctic, primarily the sector-area between 60o South Latitude and the South Pole. Up to now, those States, excluding Chile, which has submitted the preliminary information indicative of the outer limits of its continental shelf beyond 200 nm, have officially presented their submissions or partial submissions to the Commission. Particularly, three States (Australia, Norway and Argentina) in their submissions, raised express claims to the Antarctic territorial sovereignty and continental shelf, and some of the continental shelves claimed by Australia, Argentina and the UK extended to the area south of 60o South Latitude, which is the area where the Antarctic Treaty System applies. UNCLOS established a 12 nm territorial sea and 200 nm exclusive economic zone, and created and developed the regimes of continental shelf and international seabed area. Nevertheless, the existing legal provisions under the Antarctic Treaty System would surely be challenged or impaired if these regimes are applied to the Antarctic region infexibly.

The legal regimes with respect to the Arctic dif f er from those of the Antarctic in that no complete treaty system is in place for the former. The current legal rules concerning the Arctic can merely be employed to address some specifc problems. Regrettably, no law governs the Arctic region or the Arctic Ocean as a whole. There are primarily eight States bordering the Arctic Ocean: Russia, Canada, the United States, Denmark, Norway, Finland, Sweden and Iceland. However, the coastal States of the Arctic Ocean, in a true sense, only include the so-called“Arctic Five”, namely, Russia, Canada, Denmark, Norway and the United States. Except for the United States, the other four members of the Arctic Five are States Parties to UNCLOS. Russia, Norway and Demark have all made their submissions involving the Arctic Ocean to the Commission (Fig. 3). Russia’s submission was disapproved by the Commission in 2002 due to the lack of sufficient scientific evidence in the eyes of the Commission. Nonetheless, in the last 10 years, Russia has carried out large-scale scientifc surveys in the Arctic Ocean, and it presentedits revised submission in August 2015 to the Commission, based on a great amount of geological and geophysical evidence obtained from these surveys. Noticeably, Russia claimed larger extended continental shelves in the revised submission than in the original one. The part of Norway’s submission involving the Arctic continental shelf was associated with Svalbard. This submission has been approved by the Commission. Likewise, Denmark made two submissions in respect of the northeastern and northern continental shelves of Greenland. Particularly, in the submission in respect of the northern continental shelf of Greenland, submitted in December 2014, the outer limits of the continental shelf claimed by Denmarkextended to the 200 nm line of Russia through the North Pole. Additionally, Canada alleges that it has completed the preparation of its submission with respect to the Arctic Ocean and will forward it to the Commission in the near future, when the time is right. Although the United States has not yet ratifed or acceded to UNCLOS, it absolutely will not renounce the rights to extend its continental shelves. Under this circumstance, accompanying the fling of submissions by the members of Arctic Five, the scramble for extended continental shelves in the Arctic Ocean would be increasingly ferce.

Fig. 3 The Situation Concerning the Delimitation ofExtended Continental Shelves in the Arctic Ocean

D. The Ridge Rule Is the Most Complex Issue in the Delineation of Extended Continental Shelves

Sea floor highs are extensively spread across many deep sea basins and continental margins, accounting for more than 33% of the total area of the oceans. As stated above, when defining continental shelf, UNCLOS, after considering all kinds of ridges and their relationship with shelf area, sub-classed these ridges into three types - oceanic ridges of the deep ocean floor, submarine ridges and submarine elevations, and provided for their entitlement to continental shelves. Due to the diversity of ridges and their complex geological features, as well as the lack of a precise and scientifc defnition for the three terms above or an explicit method to identify them under UNCLOS, the issue of ridges becomes the most complex one in the actual delineation of extended continental shelves. It also gives a coastal State opportunities to maximize its own interests by invoking the ridge rule. In all of the submissions fled, the overwhelming majority of submitting States have treated all kinds of ridges with various geological origins, like oceanic ridges, submarine ridges, rises, seamounts and plateaux, as submarine elevations that are natural components of the continental margin, intending to extend their continental shelves to the maximum extent, even to the area that is the component of the international seabed area. However, this act will jeopardize the common interests of humankind.

Currently, the application of the ridge rule has been widely discussed in academic circles, and preliminary consensus on this issue has been reached. Nonetheless, in practice, how to defne the nature of ridges still involves complex issues. When considering submissions, the Commission always takes a case-bycase approach to deal with the parts associated with ridges, and the principles it adopts to identify all kinds of ridges are not completely consistent. Theresults of the consideration of submissions by CLCS reveal the following facts: microcontinents broken off from main continental masses, by virtue of their ancient continental crusts, are considered submarine elevations, regardless of their sizes; mid-ocean ridges formed by sea-floor spreading are generally recognized as oceanic ridges of the deep ocean foor, since they are oceanic crusts in nature. However, the identification of complex ridges with various geological origins is much more complicated and controversial, especially the ridges and accreted ridges along the convergent continental margins. In addition, when examining the entitlement to continental shelf for dif f erent types of ridges, the Commission also took into account the geological and geomorphological features of ridges and their geological nature, along with available geological and geophysical evidence. With respect to ridges with obvious crustal nature and sufficient geological evidence, the Commission would first consider the geological continuity of the ridges; however, for ridges with complex crustal compositions and origins, the Commission often only chooses to consider the continuity in morphology. On the whole, the Commission has adhered to the basic rules under UNCLOS and been compatible with the original purpose of UNCLOS, to provide different entitlements to continental shelf for dif f erent types of ridges. Also, it has conducted strict examinations in each phase of its work so that justice and equity, as well as international stability, are maintained and the interests of international seabed area are protected, which would definitely have far-reaching influence on future maritime delimitation in the world.

VI. Conclusion

The delineation of continental shelves beyond 200 nm means to draw the outer limits of the continental shelves of the coastal States, by invoking the regime of continental shelf under UNCLOS, which involves a convergence of science and law. The complex geomorphology and geological feature of the global continental margin, along with the different historical and legal relations between coastal States, gave rise to the complicated and diverse submissions that have been fled to the CLCS. At present, to delineate the outer limits of its extended continental shelf, is a pretext or great opportunity that a coastal State may use to legally expand its jurisdiction in accordance with UNCLOS. A close look at the submissions made in the last 15 years shows that the majority of coastal States have tried their utmost to expound and extend the meaning of the relevant rules and articles under theUNCLOS, pursuing to maximize the areas of their continental shelves. Therefore, new scientifc and legal issues emerged one after another during the consideration of submissions, particularly concerning the application of the ridge rule.

State practices, with respect to continental shelf delineation and the Commission’s consideration of submissions, are essential in addressing scientifc and legal issues pertaining to the delineation of extended continental shelf. The basic rules, primary methodology, supporting data and evidence, and other materials used by coastal States in their submissions, together with the main principles adopted, the critical issues reviewed, and the recommendations and reasons given by the Commission, could provide references and a legal basis for future delineation of continental shelf and consideration of submissions. Hence, bigger ef f orts should be invested in the study of relevant scientifc, technical and legal issues, and the latest developments regarding the theories and practice of the continental shelf regime should be learned and summarized in a timely manner, which could be used for reference by China in the delineation of its extended continental shelf, or when China’s maritime rights and interests are undermined by other States’ claims of continental shelf.

Translator: XIE Hongyue

Editor (English): Hewitt Ashley Nicole

The Progress and Situation of Extended Continental Shelf Delineation Worldwide

FANG Yinxia*YIN Jie**TANG Yong***LI Jinrong****

In 2001, Russia made the first submission, containing proposed outer limits of its continental shelf beyond 200 nautical miles (nm) from the baselines from which the breadth of the territorial sea is measured, to the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf (CLCS). As of 30 June 2016, the CLCS had received 81 submissions and had reviewed and released recommendations on 24 of them. After systematically outlining the situation of the submissions that have been, are being, or will be fled by States, the modes that CLCS adopts to treat submissions, and the primary issues that the CLCS examines during its consideration of submissions, this paper explores, from both scientific and legal perspectives, the features of current practice with respect to extended continental shelf delineation, as well as its development tendency. In this context, this paper suggests that greater ef f orts should be invested in the study of relevant scientifc, technical and legal issues, and the latest developments regarding the theories and practice of the continental shelf regime should be learned and summarized in a timely manner, which could be used for reference by China in the delineation of its extended continental shelf, or when China’s maritime rights and interests are undermined by other States’ claims of continental shelf.

Continental shelf beyond 200 nm; Submission; Commission onthe Limits of the Continental Shelf (CLCS); Recommendations of the CLCS

* 方銀霞，國(guó)家海洋局第二海洋研究所專屬經(jīng)濟(jì)區(qū)與大陸架研究中心研究員，電子郵箱：fangyx@sio.org.cn。本文獲海洋公益性行業(yè)科研專項(xiàng)經(jīng)費(fèi)資助項(xiàng)目（編號(hào)：201205003）和國(guó)家自然科學(xué)基金項(xiàng)目（編號(hào)：41476048和41401142）資助。

** 尹潔，國(guó)家海洋局第二海洋研究所專屬經(jīng)濟(jì)區(qū)與大陸架研究中心助理研究員。

*** 唐勇，國(guó)家海洋局第二海洋研究所專屬經(jīng)濟(jì)區(qū)與大陸架研究中心研究員。

**** 李金蓉，國(guó)家海洋信息中心，助理研究員。

? THE AUTHORS AND CHINA OCEANS LAW REVIEW

⑦ At http://www.un.org/Depts/los/clcs_new/submissions_fles/gbr08/gbr_asc_isl_rec_summ. pdf, 18 October 2016.

* FANG Yinxia, research fellow, Research Center on Exclusive Economic Zones and Continental Shelves at the Second National Institute of Oceanography, State Oceanic Administration (SOA). Email: fangyx@sio.org.cn. This article is funded by the Ocean Public Welfare Scientifc Research Special Appropriation Project (No: 201205003) and two Programs of National Natural Science Foundation of China (Nos. 41476048 and 41401142).

** YIN Jie, assistant research fellow, Research Center on Exclusive Economic Zones and Continental Shelves at the Second National Institute of Oceanography, SOA.

*** TANG Yong, research fellow, Research Center on Exclusive Economic Zones and Continental Shelves at the Second National Institute of Oceanography, SOA.

**** LI Jinrong, assistant research fellow, National Marine Data and Information Service.

? THE AUTHORS AND CHINA OCEANS LAW REVIEW

⑦ At http://www.un.org/Depts/los/clcs_new/submissions_fles/gbr08/gbr_asc_isl_rec_summ. pdf, 18 October 2016.