Dear Colleagues
Thanks Victor for your educated guess on the validity of Middleton and
Elizabeth
reefs being accepted by the Commission as relevant base points for
establishing
an EEZ and while it would be helpful if those who presented to the
Commission
could assist the debate in its absence we can do nothing other than rely
on the official submission to the Commission.
In reviewing the Annexes to the Executive Summary, it is apparent that the
Government of Australia has not used the 2,500-meter + 100-mile isobath for
any of their points. Point LHR-117 is delimited by the 350-mile line (as is
the arc between points ANZ25 and ANZ23) but point 117a:
'lies at the intersection of the outer limit of Australia's extended
continental shelf in the Lord Howe Rise region delineated in accordance
with
the provisions of UNCLOS article 76, with the geodesic connecting points
ANZ27 and ANZ28 of the Australia-New Zealand Delimitation Treaty. This
treaty defines the boundary between the Australian and New Zealand
continental shelves in the Lord Howe Rise region.'
Despite this assertion, the Executive Summary is silent on what basis it has
used to extend its ex-200-mile claim all the way to the treaty line point
(117a) with New Zealand. This point is highly unusual because the extreme
southern end of the Australian ex-200-mile claim appears to extend beyond
the 350-mile cut-off line. See Figure 11 at
http://www.un.org/depts/los/clcs_new/submissions_files/aus04/Maps/lhr_map_es2.pdf
And further, the Government's U.N. Submission Executive Summary at page 21
declares entitlements on Lord Howe Rise "by virtue of . . . Elizabeth and
Middleton Reefs and other islands." Although the submission refers to
Elizabeth and Middleton as "reefs," it apparently has drawn arcs of 200
nautical miles around the oceanic area in which the Islands approximately
are located. By so doing, it seems that Australia has claimed EEZ
rights over that area. However, even though the Executive Summary
explicitly identifies Lord Howe Island and Norfolk Island on Figures 10 and
11 with their attendant EEZ arcs as being "islands," the name and location
of Elizabeth and Middleton Islands are conspicuously missing from both
Figures.
Regards
Paul Ure
----- Original Message -----
From: "Professor Victor Prescott" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Wednesday, June 04, 2008 11:56 AM
Subject: [INT-BOUNDARIES] The status of Elizabeth and Middleton Reefs
Dear Colleagues,
Paul has raised questions about the status of small offshore features.
Those involved in the presentation to the Commission are better qualified
to give the answers , but I will hazard a guess.
These features had been involved in delimitation of a continental shelf
boundary with New Zealand. Perhaps the Commission felt obliged to accept
their status as appropriate features.
Curiously, the Report 5-26 in Volume 5, 'International Maritime
Boundaries' (Colson and Smith), pp 3759-3766, did not include any
significant discussion about the two features.
Sincerely,
Victor
|