Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-lj6df Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-14T08:49:16.005Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

U.S. Reaction to Russian Continental Shelf Claim

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 March 2017

Sean D. Murphy
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Contemporary Practice of the United States Relating to International Law
Information
American Journal of International Law , Volume 96 , Issue 4 , October 2002 , pp. 969 - 970
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of International Law 2002

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, opened for signature Dec. 10, 1982, Art. 76(1), 1833 UNTS 397 [hereinafter LOS Convention]. Geologically, the seabed that slopes away from the coast typically consists of, first, a gradual slope (the continental shelf proper), then a steep slope (the continental slope), and then a more gradual slope leading to the deep seabed floor. These three areas are collectively known as the continental margin.

2 Id., Art. 76(5).

3 The thickness must be at least 1 percent of the distance from the foot of the continental slope.

4 LOS Convention, supra note 1, Art. 76(4).

5 Id., Art. 76(7).

6 This time limit was altered by a decision of the meeting of the Convention parties in May 2001, so that no state is required to submit information prior to 2009.

7 LOS Convention, supra note 1, Art. 76(8) & Annex II. The Convention does not expressly indicate whether delimitations not based on the Commission’s recommendations are to be regarded as invalid.

8 See Receipt of the Submission Made by the Russian Federation to the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf, Ref. No. CLCS.01.2001 .LOS (Dec. 20, 2001). For an executive summary, maps, and other information submitted by the Russian Federation, see <http://www.un.org/Depts/los/clcs_new/commission_submissions.htm>.

9 See United States of America: Notification Regarding the Submission Made by the Russian Federation to the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf, Ref. No. CLCS.01.2001 .LOS/USA (Mar. 18,2002) (attaching the U.S. submission dated February 28).

10 LOS Convention, supra note 1, Art. 76(3).

11 See United States of America: Notification Regarding the Submission Made by the Russian Federation to the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf, supra note 9, attach, at 2.

12 Statement Made by the Deputy Minister for Natural Resources of the Russian Federation During Presentation of the Submission Made by the Russian Federation to the Commission, Made on 28 March 2002, at 5, UN Doc. CLCS/31 (Apr. 5, 2002).

13 See Statement by the Chairman of the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf on the Progress of Work in the Commission, para. 33, UN Doc. CLCS/34 (July 1, 2002).

14 See Rules of Procedure of the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf, Annex 2, Rule 4, UN Doc. CLCS/3/Rev.3 (Feb. 6, 2001).