Wide limits and “equitable”; distribution of seabed resources

Abstract

This article discusses some drawbacks of a universally applicable 200‐mile limit for seabed resources in terms of the artificial nature of this limit, the jeopardy to the proposed international regime to govern deep seabed resources, and the views of land‐locked and shelf‐locked countries. Given the uncertain political acceptability of a 200‐mile limit, a systems approach is suggested as a means of devising a compromise solution that would maximize the objectives of: respect of existing internationally agreed conventions; promotion of the rational development of deep seabed resources; provision of equitable distribution of seabed resources and provision of acceptable benefits to all major groups of countries. One possible solution would be to have the limit of coastal jurisdiction over seabed resources defined in terms of the continental margin coupled with a system for sharing the “take”; in the area between 12 miles and the limit of the margin. The share payable to the international seabed authority would increase progressively with the distance of exploitation from the coast but would be moderated by the relative income level of the coastal State.