 |
 |
Dear Colleagues, I regret that I was not clear in my earlier message; I do not personally believe that promulgated baselines should not be revised. On the contrary, I think that baselines, straight or archipelagic, should be revised periodically to take account of changes in the physical environment and natural coastline. Indeed, Article 7 implies that straight baselines should be revised, but it does not mandate this. My point was that the 1982 UN Convention does not require such revisions. 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 cite). I might term it the Unnatural Causes argument. Assume that a mid-Ocean island nation has an outlying island that is very low. In 2001, it is inhabited and is recognized to have the full suite of maritime jurisdictional zones (territorial sea, EEZ, etc.). The country does not claim straight or archipelagic baselines. 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 (man-induced). According to Article 121 of the Convention, "An island is a naturally formed area of land, surrounded by water, which is above water at high tide." Similarly, low-tide elevations are defined as "naturally formed." Since unnatural causes submerged the island, they must be discounted for purposes of determining maritime jurisdiction. (The island was unnaturally "un-formed.") Moreover, the island nation is not principally responsible for the greenhouse gases that induced the sea-level rise. 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 Phone & Fax: (202) 364-8403 E-mail: [log in to unmask] Website: www.Boundaries.com