Dear George,
Jaywardene, (The regime of islands in international law, 1990: Kluwer)
deals with your question on p.145. He cites Fitzmaurice the British jurist
"The real essence of an archipelago is the concept of a self-contained and
relatively compact group, not a loose congeries of islands dotted over a
large extent of sea. Alternatively if an archipelago is to be understood
in this latter sense , there can obviously be no case at all for treating
its territorial sea on a "group" basis: for there is no real group. A
group implies closely connected units, where the extent of land is fairly
high in proportion to that of the intervening spaces of sea. If the
opposite is the case, there is merely an area of sea with some islands in
it."
Sincerely, Victor
>What is the history of the UNCLOS requirement for a minimum ratio of water
>to "land" in order for an island state to be entitled to draw archipelagic
>baselines?
>
>It is obvious that a maximum ratio is needed, but it seems counter-
>intuitive to me that Malta cannot draw archipelagic baselines, but Sao
>Tome and Principe can.
>
>My question is not why the minimum ratio is 1:1, but how the concept of a
>minimum ratio even occured to anyone.
>
>Were there certain island states which other negotiators specifically
>wanted to deny archipelagic status?
>
>Many thanks to anyone who can shed some light on this.
JRV and DF Prescott
44,Lucas Street,
East Brighton
Victoria 3187
AUSTRALIA
Phone 61 3 9592 5156
Fax 61 3 9593 1624
|