While agreeing with much of the content of Dan Dzurek's response, I wish to
comment on several points that he raises.
It is important not to lose sight of the original issue. In that context,
the long-term effects of global sea level rise attributable to the Enhanced
Greenhouse Effect are relatively easy to predict, especially in terms of
some very low-lying island States of the south-west Pacific region. Some
islands and rocks (Article 121) will become low-tide elevations (Article
13), while some low-tide elevations will become submerged reefs. Indeed, in
the long term, it is quite conceivable that some islands will become
submerged reefs. The real problem at the present time is whether the time
scale of prediction of these events is basically linear or is tending to
become exponential. I therefore take issue with the statement that
"countries...take measures to preserve salient features of their coastlines
or islands", as I cannot agree with the logic in the context of some
south-west Pacific island States, especially from the perspective of
economic viability.
While I agree with the statement that changes in the coastline/baseline have
a far greater effect on defining the width of the territorial sea than on
the 200M EEZ and the 350M distance constraint line, I disagree with the
assertion that scale is less relevant in relation to the latter two zone
widths. Scale is completely irrelevant as it is the coastline/baseline
geography and the effect that this has on the intersection geometry of
generated zone boundaries, irrespective of zone width. The foreshore
gradients along extensive sections of the north-western coastline of
Australia are extremely flat (0.3-0.5%) and hydrographic surveys indicate
that these gradients extend many kilometres seaward. Using a conservative
and completely reasonable predicted rise in global sea level of 50
centimetres by the end of this century, this will have the effect of moving
the low-water line landward by well over 1 nautical mile. Movements of this
magnitude, when associated with other regions not subject to movements of
much smaller magnitude and zone boundary intersection geometry, will have
significant effects on the location of the outer limits of the 200M EEZ.
This has nothing at all to do with scale, even partly.
Lastly, I wish to suggest what I see to be a completely valid scenario. A
number of low-lying island States in the south-west Pacific region still
depend upon Admiralty charts surveyed well over a century ago for definition
of the territorial sea baseline, and for the construction of straight
archipelagic baselines. As a result of global sea level rise many low-tide
elevations and rocks, and quite possibly some islands, depicted on these
charts which currently satisfy the provisions of Article 13 and 121
respectively will eventually be submerged. If the chart coverage is
modernised, say within the latter half of this century, and the subject
features currently used to define the territorial sea baseline are depicted
as being submerged, do the island States proceed to publish new chart
coverage for the primary reason of navigational safety etc., to which
depiction of the territorial sea baseline is always a subservient but still
important issue? If it does, then the features formerly used to define the
baseline will no longer exist, or they will have a changed status in terms
of the various provisions of UNCLOS, such as Article 5 etc.. Will the
island States then revise the limits of the territorial sea and the EEZ so
that they are consistent with modern chart coverage and with the current
provisions of UNCLOS?
In the context of the subject issue, there are a number of legal questions
which have still to be addressed and answered at an international level.
Regards
Brian Murphy
GeoFix Pty Ltd
ABN 98 084 393 353
4/115 Crisp Circuit
Bruce A.C.T. 2617
Australia
Phone: +61 2 6251 5312
+61 2 6253 3500
Facsimile: +61 2 6253 5800
Mobile: 0419 422502
|