 |
 |
Dear Dan, I have been following the exchanges with interest, but as I have just got back from holiday to a mound of work, I do not propose to comment - save on your last para. below. It is certainly an ingenious suggestion, but I think that there could, at the least, be problems about advancing it. I have not looked up the trzvaux preparatoires, but my understanding is that the definition of an island as "a naturally formed area of land" is to distinguish it from one formed by - usually deliberate - changes brought about by people adding concrete or whatever to an LTE (or even submerged shoal). In such a case, the change in the physical character of the area is immediately (in both senses of the word) caused by human action. In the case of the sort of sea-level changes which you have been discussing, the change comes about indirectly, unintentionally and over a long period of time. Similarly (mutatis mutandis) for the definition of LTEs. Bearing in mind that humanity as a whole is part of nature, I am not at all sure that the fact that it is humanity which is (allegedly) causing sea-level change is a sufficient support for your argument. And take the contrary case: suppose that global human activity causes a change in sea levels which causes an LTE to become an island. My instinct tells me that that is as much an island for LOS purposes than a new one created by volcanic activity. Moreover, your argument is essentially a kind of a contario one, and experienced lawyers will tell you that such arguments are not necessary valid. Finally, an island which has been covered up by UNNATURAL activity (to accept your characterization for the sake of argument) is - once it has been covered up - not really an area of land, it might well be argued. There are other sorts of case which can arise (I have had one myself) where the answer may be even less clear-cut. Suppose, for instance, that a state conducts dredging works in one area, and the (unintended) consequence is that the sand etc. gradually builds up on a nearby LTE so that it becomes permanently above water at high tide. Is this a naturally formed island? Best wishes, Maurice Mendelson At 09:49 31/08/01 EDT, [log in to unmask] wrote: >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. Professor M.H. Mendelson QC Faculty of Laws, University College London Bentham House, 4 Endsleigh Gardens London, WC1H 0EG ENGLAND Tel. (+44) (0) 20 7679 1428 (direct 1446); fax (+44) (0) 20 7916 8539. This message is a PRIVATE communication. 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.