Dear Galo, You are quite right about the USA-Mexico line. A careless error.
We can add the  other points to the matters on which we already disagree.
Thankyou for your useful message. Sincerely, Victor

>Dear Victor,
>
>Thanks for your message and the answers to your quiz.  They taught me
>many new and interesting facts.
>
> >Dear Colleagues, The winner of the Quiz is Brendan Whyte who scored 16
> >and he was closely followed by Pierre Zakia and Martin Pratt. The
> >answers are shown below and I will now wait nervously to discover if
> >I have made any mistakes!
>
>In regard to your request for comments:
>
> >9 Can you name five pairs of countries that have delimited seabed
> >boundaries more than 200 nautical miles from their baselines?
> >Australia-France twice, Australia and Papua New Guinea, Australia-Solomon
> >Islands, Solomon Islands-Papua New Guinea, Russia and the United States.
> >Mexico and the United States, United Kingdom and Ireland twice.
>
>To my knowledge, the US and Mexico do not have yet a single maritime
>boundary delimiting the seabed (or the continental shelf) beyond 200 M.
>
> >14 Can you identify three rules in Part II Section 2 and Part IV of
> >the 1982 Law of the Sea Convention that were created with one
> >particular country in mind?
> >Article 7(4) Norway. Article 47 (6) Malaysia. Article 47 (7) The
> >Bahamas. I disallowed straight baselines because Norway was not
> >the only country in mind. I disallowed Bangladesh because while it
> >initiated the debate that resulted in the unstable coasts provision
> >it did not succeed in getting what it wanted. It wanted baselines
> >unconnected to land in the vicinity of the 10 fathom line.
>
>I beg to differ with the fundamental premise underlying this question.
>Due to the consultation process conducted through formal and informal
>negotiations during the Third United Nations Conference on the Law of
>the Sea from 1973 to 1982, particularly in the format of the Evensen,
>margineer, archipelagic, and land locked and geographically disadvantaged
>groups of States, among several others, and considering that the aim of
>the Conference was to arrive at a consensus, I do not believe that there
>is a single provision in the 1982 Convention that was created solely
>with any one particular country in mind.
>
>I am willing to comment on this issue further in the specific instances
>quoted above if necessary.
>
> >15 Which were the two judgements which created the concept of the
> >natural prolongation of the continental margin and which might be
> >considered to have ended the operation of that concept within 200
> >nautical miles of baselines?
> >The 1969 Judgement in the North Sea case involving the Netherlands,
> >Denmark and West Germany. The 1985 Judgement in the Libya-Malta case.
>
>Again, the premise of the question might require further clarification.
>Which of the two fundamental issues surrounding this concept is the focus
>of the question?
>
>1) Is it natural prolongation as a criteria to be used for the
>    delimitation of the outer limits of the continental shelf within 200 M
>    of a single State; or
>
>2) Is it natural prolongation as a criteria to be used for the delimitation
>    of bilateral international continental shelf boundaries within 200 M
>    between States?
>
>I feel that the differentiation is important because:
>
>  i) the concept of natural prolongation was an attempt made in 1969 to
>     clarify the juridical nature of the -existing- regime for the
>     continental shelf in international law; and
>
>ii) it was codified law, article 76 in the 1982 Convention itself,
>     and not the judgement of the Court in 1985, that establishes the right
>     of States to determine the outer limit of the continental shelf by means
>     of a criteria based on distance over that of natural prolongation within
>     200 M from baselines.  I believe that the Court invoked this precise
>     provision as a justification for their decision at that time.
>
>Again, I am prepared to comment on these two issues further if necessary.
>
>I know that the preparation of the Quiz might be fun and definitely informal
>but I send my thoughts above because I believe that the quiz has an important
>informative value to all of us in the list. Thank you very much for yourwork.
>Besides, I can also be proven wrong on any or all of my comments...
>
>Regards,
>
>Galo Carrera


JRV  and DF Prescott
East Brighton
Victoria 3187
AUSTRALIA

Phone 61 3 9592 5156
Fax 61 3 9593 1624




%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%