國立臺灣大學政治科學論叢

Abstract / Chinese PDF Download

In 2012, International Tribunal of Law of the Sea (“ITLOS”) issued its first maritime delimitation judgment on Bangladesh v. Myanmar. The said judgment raised a very important debate among both the academics and the judges about how to interpret the natural prolongation principle of continental shelf extended over 200 nautical miles provided in Article 76 of United Nations Convention of the Law of the Sea (“UNCLOS”). Some scholars argue that the natural prolongation principle has become only a political myth in UNCLOS after the said judgment, whereas some scholars argue that the importance of the principle is actually reconfirmed. Moreover, whether the natural prolongation principle is a natural “geomorphological” or “geological” principle also raised different opinions in the said judgment. This article aims to respond to this debate by analyzing various International Court of Justice’s judgments and outer continental shelf recommendations issued by the UN Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf in the recent years. There are three key research findings. Firstly, the concept of natural “geological” prolongation principle adopted in Bangladesh v. Myanmar case should be regarded as an exceptional situation, a result of the special circumstance of the Bay of Bengal provided by UNCLOS. Secondly, the natural prolongation principle is still an indispensable legal element provided in UNCLOS and not just a political myth. Third, geomorphological evidence plays an important probative function in the regime of outer continental shelf, which does not exclude geological evidence to be used in the natural prolongation principle and also preserves the stability of the common heritage of mankind in the area.