Dear Victor,
I would have thought that the base point in question should have
moved, provided the change was published on the largest scale chart
recognised by the coastal State. UNCLOS article 5 applies.
Published is the key here. If the "cay" was still shown on the
largest scale chart at the time of the incident, then it would still
have been an official base point, even if it was not actually there.
However, the authorities responsible for the chart, may have been
brought to book, if they knew that a change had occurred and had not
published it, particularly if it was considered a danger to navigation.
Kindest Regards
Chris
CHRIS CARLETON, MBE, MILA, MRICS
Head, Law of the sea Division
UK Hydrographic Office
[log in to unmask]
-----Original Message-----
From: John Robert Victor Prescott [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: 14 November 2002 10:45
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject:
Dear Colleagues, Today I attended a conference entitled the Marine
Cadastre. It is not a term of which I approve but the papers and
discussion
were interesting. A question arose on which I would welcome your advice.
We all know that when an international boundarey is located within a
river
there are two rules for when the river changes course. If it changes
its
course abruptly by AVULSION , as when a meander is cut off, leaving an
ox-bow lake, the boundary continues to follow the original river course.
If
the river changes its position GRADUALLY then the boundary stays with
the
river.
We now move to coastal waters. If a sandy shores changes its alignment
GRADUALLY the normal baseline presumably moves as the specified
low-water
line changes. However, consider the Great Barrier Reef where there is a
rock, which many years ago was tossed onto the top of a seaward reef
and
provided a basepoint from which Australia's territorial waters and EEZ
were measured. A cyclone comes along and the rock is hurled into a
deep
channel and permanently submerged.
Dos this event mean that the outer limit of Australia's territorial sea
immediately retreats, or does the riverine principle of AVULSION apply?
The question is prompted by the fact that a dispute developed between
the
Federal and Queensland authorities a couple of years ago when a
Malaysian
vessel ran onto Sudbury Reef in the Great Barrier reef. Queensland
insisted
it was responsible for the salvage operation and any prosecution because
the chart showed there was a cay on the reef. The federal authorities
pointed out there was no cay on the reef and dealt with the salvage
matter.
However, Queensland was allowed to prosecute the owners. It is rumoured
this was because Queensland could impose a heavier penalty under state
law
than could be imposed under federal law.
Sincerely, Victor Prescott
JRV and DF Prescott
44,Lucas Street,
East Brighton
Victoria 3187
AUSTRALIA
Phone 61 3 9592 5156
Fax 61 3 9593 1624
|