The format in which I received Brian Murphy's message means that I cannot
reproduce it fully below. But, briefly, his first para. asks whether, if
whole nations (i.e. states) are submerged by sea-level rise, they can still
claim sovereignty over maritime areas.
In principle, the answer is no, for the simple reason that one of the
criteria of statehood is the possession of land territory. So there would
be no state there, entitled to exercise maritime sovereignty. A state
without territory is in principle a contradiction in terms. Of course a
state can change its territory, so if one of these unfortunate states were
to acquire territory elsewhere (e.g. by gift or purchase) they could still
remain a state, but not normally otherwise.
There can be exceptions: if the whole international community wishes to
recognize something as a state or its analogue, it can do so. E.g. the
Pope is recognized as having international legal personality (for historic
reasons) even irrespective of sovereignty over territory. (Please don't
respond by mentioning Vatican City: the Pope had int. legal personality
even when he did not have sovereignty over the Vatican in the 19th and
early 20th centuries: see my article on diminutive states in 21
International & Comparative Law Quarterly (1972), 609). Also, SOME states
recognized Palestine as a state even before it had control over any
territory. But it would really need the whole international community to
recognize the continuing existence of the inundated states, and in practice
I think it unlikely. Unless new territory were acquired, any suriving
inhabitants of the inundated state would have to seek refuge in some other
state, where they would become subject to its sovereignty in the ordinary
way. I cannot easily foresee a state giving them refuge, but allowing them
to constitute a state within a state.
At 13:14 03/09/01 +1000, Brian Murphy wrote:
> Dear Members of the List over areas of maritime space formerly
>generated from islands (Article 121) and low-tide elevations (Article 13)
>that would then be completely submerged? does not contain any
>provisions which address the possible future ramifications of these
>phenomena upon global sea level. currently witnessing is part of a
>very long-term cyclic variation in global sea level upon which is possibly
> the unloading effect caused by glacial retreat has resulted in an
>apparent rise in land levels, manifested by apparently falling sea levels
>in that region. Regards Brian Murphy GeoFix Pty Ltd
>ABN 98 084 393 353
>4/115 Crisp Circuit
> 2617
>Australia
> 6251 5312
> 6253 3500
>Facsimile: +61 2 6253 5800
>Mobile: 0419 422502
> ----- Original Message ----- From: [log in to unmask] To:
>[log in to unmask] Sent: Friday, August 31, 2001 11:49
>PM Subject: Further on Sea level change and the LOS
>Dear Colleagues,
>
>I regret that I was not clear in my earlier message; I do not personally
> On the contrary, I
>think that baselines, straight or archipelagic, should be revised
>periodically to take account of changes in the physical environment and
> Indeed, Article 7 implies that straight baselines should
> My point was that the 1982 UN
> I doubt that countries will roll
>back their claims unless compelled to do so, and there is little impetus
>from
>the Convention.
>
>I would also like your comments on the following argument, which I do not
>recall seeing elsewhere (if some else has postulated it, please give me
the
> I might term it the Unnatural Causes argument.
>
>Assume that a mid-Ocean island nation has an outlying island that is very
> In 2001, it is inhabited and is recognized to have the full suite of
> The country does
> By the middle of 2002,
>sea-level rise has completely submerged the island, even at low tide.
>
>The country continues to claim the jurisdictional zones around this
>submerged
>feature and maintains that the feature is still an island as defined by
the
>1982 UN Convention, because the sea-level rise that inundated it is
>man-made
> According to Article 121 of the Convention, "An island is a
>naturally formed area of land, surrounded by water, which is above water
at
> Similarly, low-tide elevations are defined as "naturally
> Since unnatural causes submerged the island, they must be
> (The island
> Moreover, the island nation is not principally
>
>Therefore, the "naturally formed" phrases in the Convention and
>considerations of equity require that the former island continue to be a
>"legal island" for purposes of maritime jurisdiction.
>
>Thanks for your comments,
>Dan Dzurek
>
>International Boundary Consultants
>3601 Wisconsin Ave. NW, Suite 409
>Washington, DC 20016-3051
>& Fax: (202) 364-8403
> [log in to unmask]
>Website: www.Boundaries.com
>
>
Maurice Mendelson QC
Blackstone Chambers Barristers, Blackstone House, Temple, London EC4Y 9BW,
England.
Tel. +44 20 7583 17790; fax +44 20 7822 7350.
This message is a PRIVATE communication and may be privileged. If you are
not the intended recipient, please do not read, copy, or use it, and do not
disclose it to others. Please notify the sender of the delivery error by
replying to this message, and then delete it from your system. Thank you.
|