 |
 |
Dear all, For those interested in the land dispute concerning the Falklands/Malvinas Islands, I'm happy to announce the publication of the following book (in Spanish): Kohen, Marcelo y Rodríguez, Facundo, Las Malvinas entre el Derecho y la Historia. Refutación del folleto británico 'Más allá de la historia oficial. La verdadera historia de las Falklands/Malvinas', Buenos Aires, Eudeba, 304p. http://www.eudeba.com.ar/9789502325286/Las+Malvinas+entre+el+derecho+y+la+historia/ <http://www.eudeba.com.ar/9789502325286/Las+Malvinas+entre+el+derecho+y+la+historia/> Kind regards, Marcelo Kohen -- Marcelo G. Kohen Professeur de droit international/Professor of International Law Institut de hautes études internationales et du développement The Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies P.O. Box 136 CH - 1211 Geneva 21- Switzerland e-mail : [log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]> Voice : ++ 41 22 908 58 40 Personal web site: http://graduateinstitute.ch/law/law/faculty/page8544.html <http://graduateinstitute.ch/law/law/faculty/page8544.html> > Le 4 avr. 2016 à 16:42, Martin Pratt <[log in to unmask]> a écrit : > > Dear Phil, > > The CLCS Rules of Procedure state that “In cases where a land or maritime dispute exists, the Commission shall not consider and qualify a submission made by any of the States concerned in the dispute. However, the Commission may consider one or more submissions in the areas under dispute with prior consent given by all States that are parties to such a dispute.” (paragraph 5 of Annex 1 at (https://documents-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N08/309/23/PDF/N0830923.pdf <https://documents-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N08/309/23/PDF/N0830923.pdf>). > > Argentina asked the Commission not to consider any of the UK’s submission in respect of the Falkland Islands, South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands (http://www.un.org/depts/los/clcs_new/submissions_files/gbr45_09/arg_re_gbr_clcs_2009e.pdf <http://www.un.org/depts/los/clcs_new/submissions_files/gbr45_09/arg_re_gbr_clcs_2009e.pdf>). However, while the UK asked the Commission not to consider much of Argentina’s submission, it indicated that it had no objection to the examination by the Commission of the Argentinian submission up to, and including, fixed point RA-481 and between fixed points RA-3458 and RA-3840 (http://www.un.org/depts/los/clcs_new/submissions_files/arg25_09/clcs_45_2009_los_gbr.pdf <http://www.un.org/depts/los/clcs_new/submissions_files/arg25_09/clcs_45_2009_los_gbr.pdf>). > > Based on these communications, my understanding is that the Commission will have been able to make recommendations concerning the outer limit of Argentina’s continental shelf in the areas for which the UK gave consent, but that it cannot consider the rest of Argentina’s submission or any part of the UK’s submission unless at least one of the parties withdraws its objections. Hopefully it won’t be too long before we are able to see the official summary of the recommendations to Argentina on the CLCS website. > > Best wishes, > > m a r t i n > > =========================== > Martin Pratt > Director, Bordermap Consulting Ltd > www.bordermap.com <http://www.bordermap.com/> > > [log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]> > Office: +1 403 980 7767 > Mobile: +1 403 397 7057 > =========================== > > > > > > The United Kingdom therefore rejects those parts of Argentina's submission which claim rights to the seabed and subsoil of the submarine areas appurtenant to the Falkland Islands, South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands, and requests that the Commission does not examine those parts of the Argentine submission - Le. any fixed points greater than RA-481, except between fixed points RA-3458 and RA- 3840. > > From: International boundaries discussion list [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Phil Steinberg > Sent: 04 April 2016 07:51 > To: [log in to unmask] > Subject: Re: Argentina Continental Shelf´s claim accepted by UN > > This is an interesting discussion, although it’s of course limited by the fact that we’re all talking about a report that no one’s seen (and which those who have seen have an interest in selectively interpreting). > > If I’m correct, the question is whether, in not weighing in on the sovereignty dispute, the CLCS chose not even look at the areas that are also being claimed by the UK as an extension of sovereignty over the Falklands/Malvinas, South Georgia, etc. (which is what Coalter assumes) or whether they looked at the entire Argentine claim area, assessed the science (presumably positively), communicated their affirmation of the science to Argentina, but now will do nothing with their findings because to do so would imply taking a position in the sovereignty dispute. The latter is what Nicolas assumes and actually it’s what I had been assuming too. It’s certainly what’s implied by the way that Argentina has publicised the decision. It’s in Argentina’s interest to let this implication stand, so I don’t put much stock in that. However, I do see a logic in the CLCS beginning with an assessment of the entire claim, even if they know that nothing will happen with that assessment until the sovereignty issue is resolved. In the same spirit by which the CLCS separates “science” from “politics” when it comes to delimiting continental shelves when there are no sovereignty questions, it seems logical to me that the CLCS would take a similar approach when there are sovereignty questions: i.e. assess the scientific veracity of one state’s claim by issuing a preliminary report that is released only to the claimant and that has no binding consequences, but then don’t do anything else — at least in the zones that could be affected by the ongoing sovereignty dispute — until that dispute is settled. > > This leaves me with one question, though, and I’m hoping someone can answer this: Does anyone know the basis, in 2012, for the CLCS’ decision to charge a subcommission with examining Argentina’s 2009 claim but not the UK’s 2009 claim to the same area. Was it because at least part of Argentina’s claim was based on undisputed territory whereas all of the UK’s claim was based on disputed territory? Was it because a quick scan revealed Argentina’s claim to be more thorough, and thus the best one for initial review? Given the political sensitivity in the region, that seems to me to have been an oddly provocative decision for the CLCS to have made in 2012. Did the UK know about it? Did they protest? Or, perhaps, is a similar assessment being made of the UK’s submission but the report simply isn’t yet complete? > > I don’t think it sheds further light on things, but there’s further discussion of this in an article that I’ve written for The Conversation (https://theconversation.com/falklands-row-adds-up-to-much-ado-about-not-much-in-the-south-atlantic-56956 <https://theconversation.com/falklands-row-adds-up-to-much-ado-about-not-much-in-the-south-atlantic-56956>) and further mused about on my personal blog (https://philsteinberg.wordpress.com/2016/04/01/fighting-fire-with-water/ <https://philsteinberg.wordpress.com/2016/04/01/fighting-fire-with-water/>). > > Best to all, > > Phil Steinberg > Professor of Political Geography, Durham University > Director, IBRU: Durham University’s Centre for Borders Research > http://philsteinberg.wordpress.com <http://philsteinberg.wordpress.com/> > +44 191 334 1945 > > On 4 Apr 2016, at 02:14, Coalter Lathrop <[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote: > > > Dear Nicolas, > > Thank you again, this time for the official press releases from the Argentine MFA and the UK FO, which I had not seen. > > With the utmost respect to our colleagues and friends on both sides of the sovereignty issues embedded in this discussion (and about which I take no position!), my point remains the same: > > unless there is something in the recommendations that is not reflected in the UN press release, the CLCS clearly did not say "OK" to the Argentine submission except in respect of two relatively small, undisputed areas of shelf beyond 200 nautical miles from the mainland of Argentina (circled in red on the attached map). > > Very best regards, > > Coalter G. Lathrop > Sovereign Geographic > +1.202.905.5820 > > On Sun, Apr 3, 2016 at 8:07 PM, Nicolas Boeglin <[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote: > Dear Coalter > > Many thanks for your kind message. If you read me carefully, I simply wrote "The UN Commission of the Limits of Continental Shelf seems to have said to Argentina recently: "Ok"." > > CLCS is, as you know, not a body to examine and resolve disputes among States. > > In the present case, Argentina presented to CLCS its technical report on expanded Continental Shelf, and CLCS agreed in its 40 meeting, with the usual reservations made by CLCS recommnedations with regards to unresolved disputed areas. > > For your information, find official press realease of Argentina MFA of March 28. > > http://www.mrecic.gov.ar/en/argentina-presented-today-outer-limits-its-continental-shelf <http://www.mrecic.gov.ar/en/argentina-presented-today-outer-limits-its-continental-shelf> > > And a press release published in UK by FO. > > https://www.gov.uk/government/news/uk-response-to-argentinas-intention-to-extend-its-continental-shelf <https://www.gov.uk/government/news/uk-response-to-argentinas-intention-to-extend-its-continental-shelf> > > (I note that your message includes the same references included in the FO statement quoted). > > I think that both officials documents are valuable. > > If the point is to know if "CLCS seems to have said OK to Argentina presentation on expanded Continental Shelf", I can understand you can disagree, (as well as FO) on my short note´s conclusion, based on the fact that Argentina top officials seems extremely happy with CLCS decision on expanded CS. > > Sincerely yours > > Nicolas Boeglin > > > 2016-04-03 17:23 GMT-06:00 Coalter Lathrop <[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>>: > Dear Nicolas, > > Thank you for your short note regarding the recent recommendations to Argentina by the CLCS. > > I have not been able to find the recommendations themselves, but based on the press release following the 40th session (found here: http://www.un.org/press/en/2016/sea2030.doc.htm <http://www.un.org/press/en/2016/sea2030.doc.htm>) and the 2009 note from the UK (found here: http://www.un.org/depts/los/clcs_new/submissions_files/arg25_09/clcs_45_2009_los_gbr.pdf <http://www.un.org/depts/los/clcs_new/submissions_files/arg25_09/clcs_45_2009_los_gbr.pdf>), I cannot agree with your conclusion that the CLCS said "OK" to Argentina except in two very limited areas off the mainland coast of Argentina. > > Instead, it appears that the Commission actually declined to consider the vast majority of the Argentine submission, including all parts associated the Malvinas/Falklands, South Georgia and South Sandwich Islands, and Antarctica. The relevant part of the UN press release of 28 March 2016 is copied below. > > In the meantime, if you or anybody else has access to the recommendations, it would be good to see what the Commission actually said and did. > > Best regards, > > Coalter > > > "With regard to the recommendations in respect of the submission made by Argentina, it is recalled that, previously, the Commission had already decided that it was not in a position to consider and qualify those parts of the submission that were subject to dispute and those parts that were related to the continental shelf appurtenant to Antarctica (see CLCS/64, paras. 76 and 77 and CLCS/76 para. 57)." UN Press Release SEA/2030 > > Coalter G. Lathrop > Sovereign Geographic > +1.202.905.5820 <tel:%2B1.202.905.5820> > > On Sun, Mar 27, 2016 at 2:34 PM, Nicolas Boeglin <[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote: > Dear colleagues > > Please find a short note on Argentina´claims concerning its continental shelf. Many links refer to documents in English and Spanish. > > The UN Commission of the Limits of Continental Shelf seems to have said to Argentina recently: "Ok". > > http://derechointernacionalcr.blogspot.com/2016/03/argentina-expande-el-limite-de-su.html <http://derechointernacionalcr.blogspot.com/2016/03/argentina-expande-el-limite-de-su.html> > > I refer to Argentina´s official study presented in 2009: > > http://www.un.org/depts/los/clcs_new/submissions_files/arg25_09/arg2009e_summary_esp.pdf <http://www.un.org/depts/los/clcs_new/submissions_files/arg25_09/arg2009e_summary_esp.pdf> > > > Yours sincerely > > Nicolas Boeglin > > > > <argentina clcs map areas considered.pdf>