Renfeng Ma, Liangliang Li, Hao Zhou, Jingwu Ma
Abstract: Continental Shelf Delimitation in Global Ocean Governance: Legal, geopolitical, and Resource Dimensions. Continental shelf delimitation constitutes a central issue in global ocean governance because it directly involves sovereignty claims, access to marine resources, and stability of the international geopolitical order. With the increasing assertion of maritime rights by late-developing coastal states, tension between traditional maritime powers and emerging maritime nations has become increasingly visible. Against this backdrop, continental shelf delimitation practices have become testing grounds and catalysts for the evolution of maritime boundary governance, reflecting a dynamic interplay between international law, resource politics, and technological advancements in marine science. Research Purpose and Methods: This study provides a systematic review of the literature on continental shelf delimitation, with an emphasis on states' claims concerning sovereignty, resource entitlements, and geopolitical order. Through a comparative analysis of legal texts, judicial precedents, and case studies of disputes in different maritime regions, this review highlights commonalities and divergences in state practice. It also identifies the key obstacles faced by coastal states when invoking the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) and the principle of natural prolongation. Methodologically, this study relies on a doctrinal legal analysis combined with geopolitical interpretation, which enables an integrated understanding of how law and politics jointly shape the delimitation process. Results Three major findings emerged from this review. 1) Resource-based conflicts: Continental shelf areas are often rich in hydrocarbons, fisheries, and other marine resources. However, the transboundary and mobile nature of these resources makes them frequent sources of interstate conflicts. Fishery disputes in the North Atlantic, hydrocarbon competition in the Eastern Mediterranean, and overlapping claims in the Arctic illustrate how cross-border resource flows challenge stable delimitation and lead to the complex interweaving of multilateral negotiations and contested ownership. 2) Multidimensional boundary perceptions: Delimitation cannot be reduced to the purely geological question of natural prolongation. Coastal states are increasingly invoking historical rights, security concerns, and geopolitical spatial strategies to construct composite claims. The integration of legal, historical, and political arguments reflects the multilayered nature of contemporary maritime governance and demonstrates that boundary-making is as much a political process as it is a legal-technical exercise. 3) Limitations of the UNCLOS: Although the UNCLOS provides the principal legal framework for delimitation, its practical application is limited. The insufficient operationalization of natural prolongation rules, coupled with the inconsistent reliance on judicial precedents by international courts and tribunals, creates significant uncertainty. These gaps hinder coastal states from asserting sovereignty and fairly distributing resources, particularly late-developing maritime nations that lack the technical and legal capacity to substantiate their claims. Conclusion and Research Contributions: In light of these findings, this study proposes three directions for future research and the normative development of global ocean governance. First, the principle of natural prolongation should be re-examined and strengthened as a natural legal basis for dispute resolution, ensuring that geological realities continue to inform legal outcomes. Second, the continuity of historical rights should be incorporated into interpretive logic consistent with customary international law, recognizing that long-standing practices form part of legitimate maritime entitlements. Third, the interpretive gaps in UNCLOS should be supplemented by documenting and theorizing coastal states' practices, thereby enabling a more inclusive process of consensus building in global maritime rule making. This study contributes to the literature by offering a structured synthesis of the key legal, political, and resource-related dimensions of continental shelf delimitation. It highlights the ways in which boundary disputes reflect competing national interests and shape the evolution of the international maritime order. By bridging doctrinal analysis with geopolitical perspectives, this study underscores the need for adaptive governance mechanisms that can accommodate established powers and rising coastal states in the rapidly changing global ocean governance seascape.