My error is revealed to all at last! I do not have my research at
hand, but Clive discretely pointed out that pesky "and" between
"delta" and "other unstable conditions." That conjunction limits this
clause to the unusual situation of an unstable delta, most
specifically that of Bangladesh at whose insistence and for whose
(probably sole) benefit this clause was inserted.
My point about (non) abuse of right still stands and would incorporate
"self-judging" large-scale maps produced by a small island coastal
state under Art. 5.
Regards,
Peter Prows
On Dec 16, 2008, at 20:31, Michael Buky <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Good Day Everyone
>
> As a newcomer to this list I would appreciate discussing the
> interpretation
> of UNCLOS 7.2 which states in full:
>
> ‘Where because of the presence of a delta and other natural conditio
> ns the
> coastline is highly unstable, the appropriate points may be selected
> along
> the furthest seaward extent of the low-water line and, notwithstanding
> subsequent regression of the low-water line, the straight baselines
> shall
> remain effective until changed by the coastal State in accordance
> with this
> Convention.’
>
> The first 17 words have two implications:
> 1/ If read in one breath they would seem to refer to the shifting of
> debris
> or at least, non-aqueous matter, with the understanding that deltas
> and
> ‘other natural conditions’ such as storms disgorge and dislodge
> matter that
> may change the coastline.
> 2/ The term ‘… highly unstable …’ implies a move in any
> horizontal direction
> whereas sea level rise is by definition unidirectional and vertical.
>
> In all these points, I would suggest a long bow would have to be
> drawn for
> 7.2 to have application to sea level rise.
>
> My thanks for the interesting discussion
>
> FYI, I am a PhD student at Griffith Uni in Brisbane, Australia
> having sailed
> out from the UK between 1980-1988.
>
> Regards
>
> Mike Buky
>
>
|