Bangladesh/Myanmar maritime dispute Judgment

Dispute concerning delimitation of the maritime boundary between Bangladesh and Myanmar in the Bay of Bengal (Bangladesh/Myanmar)

• Special Agreement
• Written Proceedings
• Oral Proceedings
• Orders
• Judgment
• Press Releases
• Photographs

Guyana submitted its Continental Shelf claim

By Denis Scott Chabrol

Wednesday, 07 September 2011 1615

Guyana on Wednesday announced that it has asked the United Nations Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf to extend the South American nation's continental shelf in the hope of tapping into oil and gas reserves there.

Foreign Minister, Carolyn Rodrigues-Birkett said the submission made Tuesday seeks to add another 150 nautical miles from the 200 nautical mile outer limit of Guyana’s Exclusive Economic Zone.

Norway signed an agreement with 6 African countries for Cintinental Shelf extension

Published on Wednesday, 22nd September, 2010 at 13:45 under the news category, by Ramona Tancau. Last Updated on 22nd September 2010 at 13:57.

Norway has signed an agreement with six African countries, committing itself to helping them gain jurisdiction over their continental shelf

Professor Crawford tells us about his role in Romaia/Ukraine trial

de Crina Boros HotNews.ro

16 martie 2010, 13:17 

Professor James Crawford has been awarded a Romanian national order as “Knight” last year for helping Romania to win the trial addressing the Black Sea maritime border with Ukraine in Hague. Originally from Australia, he teaches International Law at Cambridge University and he’s a member of the English and Australian Bars. Professor Crawford recently had the time to tell us about the trial and about the role he played.

R: You contributed to Romania’s verdict in Hague. What was your role in the trial?

James Crawford: I was one of the five external lawyers working for Romania. The other three included one from Paris, one from Oxford and French and English juniors. It seems like a large number but obviously it was a very sensitive case and an important case for Romania. I worked on the case since 1999. So it’s been quite a long period as well. I’m a professor of International Law at Cambridge and also a member of the English and Australian Bars. I advise governments on a range of issues, including law of sea issues in regards delimitation and fisheries. The Government asked me if I could help them. It is a specialised professional relationship in that you are working directly with the people in Government, not through the intermediation of solicitors.

The Government decided at an early stage that it would run the case itself with the assistance of counsel and they appointed a fairly small in-house team – about six people – and they maintained the consistency of that team throughout the 10 years that it took, from the time in 1999 when the Government came to the conclusion that the negotiations had no prospect of success, till’ 2009 when we got the decision of the Court. This was important because the in-house people, the agent, the co-agent and the other younger lawyers knew what they were doing throughout and developed a familiarity with the issues which helped enormously.

"To put it crudely, the court traded the Serpent’s island for Sulina dyke"

R: Which were, in your opinion, the key moments of the trial?

J. Crawford: The actual court cases are nothing like the trials you see on television. You can occasionally see things on television from international trials, but it all looks like it’s happening very slowly and most of the key developments occur behind the scenes, in particular in the deliberations of the court, which of course are secret.

The key issues in the case were, simplifying matters greatly, the following. The first aspect is that in the Black Sea Ukraine has much longer coastline than Romania does, because of the Crimean peninsula in particular. And the Ukrainian coastlines are deeply indented, which greatly increases the length of the coastline. Now, one criterion taken into account in maritime delimitation is coastal length, because every seacoast is entitled in principle to maritime zones - territorial sea and economic zone. So the theory has gone that if you have more coast, you get more zones. And that had the potential consequence of squeezing Romania entirely out, especially in the Northern part of the Romanian coast. So there was the important question of which coastal length would be taken into account.

The second problem coming up to the trial, which is a problem we always knew about, was Serpants Island, a very small island which used to belong to Romania. It was removed from Romanian control in a process which doesn’t bear much examination after the Paris Peace Treaty. It wasn’t removed from Romanian control by the Paris Peace Treaty, but by a bi-lateral agreement with the Soviet Union in 1948.

The problem when you have a coastline and an island off-shore fairly close to the coastline, in this case 23 miles away, if you give the island the same effect as the coast, it pushes the boundary off where it would otherwise be. It acts like a blocker. In the Ukrainian case, it was the combination of their coastline and the existence of this tiny island off-shore which threatened to push the whole of the Romanian maritime boundary well to the south.

So the crucial things that we had to do was to show first of all that some of the Ukrainian coast was irrelevant to our purposes, which we did to a certain extent. And secondly, to show that you had to draw the line, taking no account of the Serpents Island, which we did in the end completely successfully. What the court did was to draw a mainland coast equidistance line, which goes around Serpent’s Island on a 12-mile arc. That had already been agreed way back in 1949. And then the Court went on to discount the Sulina dyke, which is Romanian feature, which sticks out into the sea and had the effect of pushing the line in the other direction. To put it crudely, the Court traded Serpent’s Island for Sulina dyke.

That led to a line somewhat more to the south than the strict equidistance line would have been if you could have drawn that from the end of Sulina dyke. But not very far. It meant that essentially, Romania has the entire economic zone of its coasts in a forward projection up to the medium line with the Crimea. That is, in fact, a much better line than we thought we might get. And it reflected that 80% of the overlapping claims. If you take the two claims of the parties and take the zones that overlapped, Romania won 80% of that area. In maritime trials, that is a good win.

"The Court was unanimous and this is unusual in maritime limitations"

R: Why did you think that Romania would get less?

J. Crawford: Well, I was worried about coastal length. A particular worry was the south-facing coast of Ukraine. You could treat that western part of that part of the Black Sea and Ukraine did treat the Western part of the Black Sea as the sort of Ukrainian lake, because of its control of Crimea. And I was worried that the projection from the North, which coasts project 200 miles of economic zone, would have the effect of pushing us to the South.

And it was also the concern that the Court might say that the Serpent’s Island should be given some effect. Serpent’s Island is small, but it is there. When islands are given effect in maritime delimitation it is not uncommon to give them half-effect, which means that you draw a line giving then full effect and a line giving them zero effect and then split the difference. And I thought there was a risk that the court might say that taking into the account the coastal length, it was equitable to give Serpent’s Island half-effect. In fact, they gave it zero effect, but recovered some of the consequences of that for Ukraine by discounting Sulina dyke, which I think was fair.

What has to be emphasised is that the Court was unanimous and this is unusual in maritime delimitation. So we managed to get a judgment which satisfied the entire Court and nonetheless won the case. Quite often there is the fear that the Court would be unanimous, but at your expense. In other case, it would give you less than you’re entitled to in order to produce a substantial majority. But in President Higgins’ last case this did not happen.

"Ukraine was obviously interested in integration with Europe"

R: Why do you think that Ukraine went along with the verdict? They tried to compromise with Romania for so many years and it didn’t work out. Why now?

J. Crawford: The case was referred to the court with the agreement of Ukraine. And we’ve had 23 rounds of negotiations, which achieved nothing. Ukraine was obviously interested in integration with Europe, so it couldn’t be seen to simply rejecting the judgment of the court. The normal pattern is that if parties agree to go to the Court, they accept the result. And it’s easier for Ukraine to accept the result coming from an outside party than to make a compromise itself. From a political point of view, you can always blame the outside party. The area that I understand to be particularly prospective is the area East of Serpents Island where Ukraine got some, we got some. So they still got prospective areas in the Black Sea. We will see what happens.

R: Both Romania and Ukraine started to give away territories in the Black Sea to foreign companies before the verdict was ruled out. Can this be done legally?

J. Crawford: Well, obviously a company which accepts the concession from a Government in respect of a disputed area of a continental shelf or economic zone takes the risk that the government doesn’t own that, doesn’t have the right to give it away. Now that we have a line in the sea, that the Court has told us exactly where the boundary is, it will be for governments to modify those concessions, so that each of the companies stay on the right side of the line. I don’t know to which extent these concessions are continuing. Some of them are rather old, some of them are more recent. But that will have a corresponding effect for the companies.

R: How did you work with the Romanian team? Did you have to work long hours?

J. Crawford: I tend to go to bed early and get up early. One of my colleagues in the team goes to bed late and wakes up late. So between us, we were working 24 hours. One of us was always working. He does the night shift and I do the early morning shift. So he gives me his takes at the end of the day and I make comments on them while he’s asleep. It’s very efficient.

It’s very hard work. The Romanian team, including the cartographic expert, worked very hard and very well. It showed the wisdom of keeping the team together during the years of getting ready for the court case.

We also had to present the Romanian position as to the history of the dispute. It went back to this very controversial transaction of 1948, although that’s strictly irrelevant because Romania accepted Ukraine’s sovereignty over the Serpents Island in 1997 in a bi-lateral agreement. So it wasn’t anymore relevant strictly speaking. Nonetheless, the government’s position was that the court had to be told how this issue arose. And there were a series of agreements between the Soviet Union and Romania after 1948. It started with 1949, which drew a line around Serpents Island – a 12-mile line. And one of our arguments was that the line was an all-purpose maritime boundary; the Court didn’t accept that, but it produced a result which was nearly the same as if it had been, so I didn’t mind losing that argument.

The court said the 1949 Agreement wasn’t clear enough. It was expressed only as a territorial sea boundary not as an exclusive economic zone boundary. And the exclusive economic zone boundary developed later. It wasn’t really an existence in 1949, so the parties couldn’t have agreed in 1949 what the boundary would be. I think that’s correct.

 

Published in

 http://english.hotnews.ro/stiri-regional_europe-7037514-much-better-line-than-thought-might-get.htm

Rocks into Islands

By Qin Jize, Li Xiaokun and Cheng Guangjin (China Daily)

Updated: 2010-02-11 09:10
 

Japan's latest move to transform a group of rocks into an "island" so as to claim an expanded exclusive economic zone (EEZ) endangers the interests of its neighbors. It not only deprives others from due economic interests but also threatens their national security, Chinese experts said.

Japan's Congress on Tuesday approved a law that would give the central government, rather than local entities, the authority to manage and control specific remote, uninhabited "islets" in an effort to expand its EEZ.

The first two candidates are the remote Pacific outcroppings of Okinotori, an atoll of coral reefs 1,700 km south of Tokyo, and Minamitori, 2,000 km southeast of Tokyo.

If successful, Japan may claim an EEZ of about 400,000 sq km, almost the same as Japan's land territory, and continental shelf of about 740,000 sq km around the uninhabited Okinotori atoll as long as it can prove it to be an "island".

"The Okinotori atoll is only about 10 sq m above the sea at the flood-tide and is nothing but a rock according to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS)," Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Ma Zhaoxu said in Beijing last month.

According to UNCLOS Article 121: "Rocks which cannot sustain human habitation or economic life of their own shall have no exclusive economic zone or continental shelf."

"If Japan's efforts succeed, other countries will not be allowed to fish or share other rich natural resources in a region that is currently regarded as international high seas," Wang Hanling, an expert in maritime affairs and international law at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, told China Daily.

"Besides, for some neighbors such as China and the Republic of Korea, the fleets' freedom of navigation along some key routes in the area will also be hampered. That will pose risks to their national security," Wang said.

"Japan's claim over Okinotori, which lies between Taiwan and Guam, is in a strategically important position for Japan's benefit," said Jin Yongming, a fellow researcher from the Shanghai Academy of Social Sciences. "But the move has harmed other countries' navigation interests and marine survey in the sea waters around Okinotori, and is contrary to the principle of fairness."

Japan has been trying to make the atoll a de facto island through a series of moves over the years.

Since 1987, Japan has spent some $300 million in building a concrete wall around the Okinotori atoll, and has already completed a solar-powered lighthouse.

Japan has also allocated part of its fiscal 2010 draft budget for infrastructure on Okinotori atoll to keep it from submerging into the sea.

"Japan's actions and claims are obviously untenable in legal terms and other countries have also raised their concerns," Ma said. "The construction of facilities, however, will not change its legal status."

Aside from Beijing, Seoul has also complained to the UN Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf about Japan's effort to create an artificial island to meet the international laws. So far there is no deadline for the commission to give a conclusion to end the dispute.

In another development, China announced recently that it has built a series of stone tablets and lighthouses on islands and reefs off its coast in East China Sea, signifying the completion of permanent markers of all the baseline points in the oil-rich area.

The move is seen as Beijing's latest efforts to clarify its territorial waters' baseline in East China Sea, so that the country can legally extend the exclusive economic zones under international protocols.

The latest permanent structure built to mark the country's East China Sea territorial baseline is on Waikejiao, a small sand island off the coast of Jiangsu province.

Zou Xingguo, political commissar of the Chinese navy's East Sea Fleet survey team, told reporters that the construction of permanent markers and data collection at the baseline points "are aimed at clarifying China's maritime sovereignty and provide substantial legal basis for China's exploitation and utilization of maritime sources."

China has adopted a straight baseline system in its maritime boundary delineation practice, which means joining specified or discrete points on the low-water line. The straight line drawn between the selected points should be the starting point for determining its territorial waters.

In 1996, the government announced some baseline points for the continent, territorial sea and Xisha Islands.

The country also joined the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea the same year and claimed a 12 nautical-mile wide territorial sea adjacent to the mainland, Taiwan and other major islands.

Gao Hong, an expert on Japan studies at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, said the construction of permanent markers of the baseline points is the necessary preparation for China to conduct dialogues with neighboring countries for solving territory disputes.

Xinhua citing the National Land and Sea Defense Commission as the source said that China has settled land boundary disputes with 12 neighboring countries through negotiation, accounting for about 90 percent of its total borderline.

Yet disputes over territorial waters with neighboring nations are still outstanding.

Published in\

http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/world/2010-02/11/content_9461259.htm

Media criticized Albanian Greece maritime boundary delimitation

Tirana / 29/04/09 / 15:15

The Albanian media have published reports that Albania gave 225 square kilometers of its territorial waters to Greece. The media criticized the Agreement on the Delineation of the Continental Shelf and the Maritime Zone between the Republic of Albania and the Hellenic Republic, which was signed Monday by the foreign ministers of the two countries.The highest-circulation local papers cited experts as saying that signing of the agreement resulted in shrinkage of the strategic position of the Albanian state.At the same time, the media accused the government's rejection of the such reports, which says that the delineation registers 150 coordinates, which are joined in an unbroken line and define the maritime border between the two countries which are absolutely equally distanced from the most extreme points of the land in each of the two countries. /end/ nv

Published in

http://makfax.com.mk/en-us/Details.aspx?ItemID=3649

Britain and Argentina Continental Shelf claim dispute

Argentina has lodged a hostile claim at the United Nations for 660,000 square miles of the South Atlantic seabed immediately surrounding the Falkland Islands and other British overseas territories.

The formal submission, which challenges "the illegitimate British occupation of the southern archipelagos", is the latest territorial dispute to surface in the race to extend national sovereignties over the ocean floor.

Argentina's deputy foreign minister, Victorio Tacetti, presented 40 volumes of documentation to the UN commission on the limits of the continental shelf in New York this week, describing them as "11 years [of research] in defence of national sovereignty".

The United Kingdom has only a few weeks to present its rival claim for the seabed around the Falklands, South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands to the UN commission. A 10-year deadline for UK claims expires on 13 May.

The ambitious Argentinian claim extends as far as the Antarctic. There, the UK has already expressed an interest in the continental shelf up to 350 miles beyond the coast of its South Pole territory.

The UN convention on the law of the sea permits states to extract oil, gas and minerals from the seabed up to, and sometimes more than, 350 miles beyond their coastlines if they can demonstrate the "prolongation" of an adjoining continental shelf.

The historic Anglo-Argentinian enmity over the Falklands has been reinforced recently by the search for oil and gas reserves on the surrounding ocean floor. Two years ago Buenos Aires ended an agreement to co-operate on underwater prospecting.

Argentina has claimed Las Malvinas - its term for the Falklands - since Britain occupied them in 1833. Decades of tensions flared into war when Argentinian forces invaded in 1982. The 73-day conflict cost the lives of 649 Argentinians and 258 Britons.

In its formal UN submission, Argentina declared: "The Argentine Republic has never recognised the illegitimate British occupation of the southern archipelagos, as the presence of the United Kingdom derives from the usurpation in 1833 of a part of the Argentine national territory, which was immediately protested and never consented by Argentina."

Responding to the assertion of territorial rights, the Foreign Office in London said: "UK experts will be studying the Argentinian submission but we do not accept that there is any basis for the Argentine submission to include [claims for] the continental shelf generated by the Falklands, South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands.

"The UK government will itself be submitting data to the [commission] with respect to the Falkland Islands, South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands before [the deadline of] 13 May."

The effect of a British claim will be to freeze the two rival submissions, preventing either nation from exploiting the seabed beyond 200 miles from the shoreline until diplomatic agreement is reached.

Last month Gordon Brown met the Argentinian president, Cristina Kirchner, during an economic summit in Chile, and warned her that Britain would never discuss the sovereignty of the Falklands.

Published in

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/apr/24/falklands-britain-argentina-dispute-seabed

Somalia submitted preliminary information indicative of its outer limit of continental shelf

Somalia has submitted preliminary information indicative of the outer limits of its continental shelf with Norwegian assistance. Somalia is the first African country to submit such information. The submission was prepared with the assistance of the Government of Norway in consultation with the Special Representative of the Secretary-General (SRSG) for Somalia, acting on behalf of the Transitional Federal Government of the Somali Republic. “Somalia has submitted preliminary information indicative of the outer limits of its continental shelf to the UN within the deadline required under the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea. This is a historic step, both in terms of Somalia’s national development and with regard to the international legal order,” said Foreign Minister Jonas Gahr Stoere“This clarification of responsibility and authority in maritime areas in accordance with international law is decisive for potential future resource management and thus for the welfare of future generations.

The Somali submission therefore also sends an important signal to other States that developing countries where there is protracted armed conflict can comply with the requirements of international law,” said Minister of the Environment and International Development Erik Solheim.Somalia was given until May 2009 to submit documentation of the extent of its continental shelf beyond 200 nautical miles from its coastline. Developing countries that face particular challenges in collecting data may submit preliminary information indicative of the outer limits of their continental shelf – thereby meeting the deadline. Somalia is the first country to do so.Neither the Norwegian Government nor Norwegian companies have interests of their own in the area.

The assistance provided by Norway to the SRSG for Somalia and the Transitional Federal Government of the Somali Republic must be seen in the context of Norway’s commitment to a comprehensive and lasting settlement of the situation in the country, and as an expression of Norway’s support to the SRSG in carrying out his mandate in accordance with Security Council resolutions.Somalia, which has one of the longest coastlines of all the African countries, has been plagued by civil war and widespread human suffering for nearly two decades. Moreover, the waters off the coast of Somalia have been the scene of piracy against international shipping since 2007.

The submission has been prepared with the assistance of international law experts in the Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, experts in the geosciences in the Norwegian Petroleum Directorate and experts from the UNEP Shelf Programme, represented by GRID-Arendal. Norway has a similar assistance programme in the West African countries, in cooperation with the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS).

Published in

http://www.norwaypost.no/content/view/21910/26/

Norway extended its continental shelf

LONDON -(Dow Jones)-

Norway's continental shelf in the far north has been extended by an area of 235,000 square kilometers to around 2.4 million square kilometers, following a recommendation by the U.N's commission on the limits of the continental shelf.

The legally binding U.N. commission's recommendation confirms that Norway has rights and responsibilities in maritime areas stretching beyond the standard continental shelf accorded to countries which is up to 200 nautical miles from the coastline, Norwegian Foreign Minister Jonas Gahr Stoere said in a statement.

He added that the recommendation had put in place a "clear division of responsibility" and "predictable conditions" for activities in northern areas.

Norway submitted documentation to the commission on its continental shelf stretching into the Arctic Ocean, Barents Sea and Norwegian Sea in 2006, which was reviewed by the commission before it reached its recommendation.

Company Web site: http://www.regjeringen.no
-By Elizabeth Adams, Dow Jones Newswires; +44 (0) 20 7842 9386; elizabeth.adams@dowjones.com (END) Dow Jones Newswires
04-16-090825ET
Copyright (c) 2009 Dow Jones & Company, Inc.

Published in

http://www.nasdaq.com/aspx/stock-market-news-story.aspx?storyid=200904160825dowjonesdjonline000678&title=norways-continental-shelf-gains-235000-square-kilometers

Continental Shelf claims increase rapidly

By NATHANIAL GRONEWOLD, Greenwire

UNITED NATIONS -- The U.N. commission charged with checking and certifying nations' claims to seabed stretching hundreds of miles from their shorelines is getting very busy very fast.

The Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf -- a body of specialized undersea geographers and hydrographers established under the 1982 Law of the Sea Convention -- has seen its workload double from late last year, fulfilling its members' predictions of a backlog that could take years to resolve.

From 2001 through 2007, just nine claims were put forward as more advanced Law of the Sea Treaty countries surveyed their continental shelves. Giant claims submitted by Brazil, Australia and New Zealand were approved in 2007 and 2008, freeing those nations to prospect for hydrocarbons, mineral deposits or methane hydrates in their newly minted control zones.

But since Japan issued its sweeping claim to Pacific Ocean territory last November, many smaller states have leaped into the fray.

All told, the commission now has 22 applications, some of which include partial claims by the United Kingdom and France over sea bottom around their colonies. Nine claims arrived since Japan's submission, with five of those coming in the first three months of this year.

The newcomers include Burma, Mauritius, Yemen, Suriname and Seychelles. Claims by Uruguay and the Philippines arrived just last week in time for the 23rd session of the commission that wrapped up here Thursday.

And more applications are expected. Canada, Denmark, Portugal, South Africa, South Korea, Vietnam and a few others have said they are conducting surveys and preparing claims. Applications by Argentina, India, Kenya, Maldives, oil-rich Angola and more could arrive next month.

But the commission is working its way through earlier claims as applications pile up.Of the 22 claims, the commission has fully reviewed and given full or partial approval to just five. For example, the commission has confirmed the Russian Federation's 2001 claims in the Pacific Ocean and the Barents Sea, but it has told Moscow that it needed better data to review its attempt to control a huge swath of the Arctic.

The commission is still working its way through 2006 applications. Commission members are expected to issue their opinion soon on claims off Europe's west coast spelled out in a joint application by the E.U. states of Spain, France, Ireland and the United Kingdom.

Work will also soon be concluded on the commission's review of claims made by Norway in the Arctic and Atlantic and a small claim by Mexico for control of a patch of territory in the deep waters of the Gulf of Mexico. Commission members speaking on background say these three applications are sound and will likely win approval.

Tensions rise

Diplomatic tensions are rising with the applications as dormant territorial disputes resurface.

In February, China and Korea responded critically to Japan's claim to seabed off distant islands that it controls. The dispute centers around Okinotori, an outcrop that is found nowhere near Korean or Chinese waters. The two claim Japan's Okinotori is in fact a rock, not a habitable island, and therefore does not qualify under Law of the Sea rules.

"Available scientific data fully reveal that the rock of Oki-no-Tori, on its natural conditions, obviously cannot sustain human habitation or economic life of its own, and therefore shall have no exclusive economic zone or continental shelf," the Chinese government says in its letter to the U.N. secretary-general.

And more serious conflicts are emerging. France has signaled its intention to claim continental shelf abutting the islands of St. Pierre and Miquelon, French territories very close to the east coast of Canada. The Canadian government has issued a strongly negative reaction, insisting that France and Canada have already settled on a maritime boundary through a bilateral treaty.

Argentina's forthcoming application is expected to include seabed surrounding the Malvinas, otherwise known as the Falkland Islands, which are controlled by the United Kingdom.

The most serious potential for disputes is in the Arctic, where Canada, Denmark, Norway and Russia all have competing claims.

Russia says it controls land beneath the North Pole, though Canadian media reports suggest there is growing evidence that Denmark could have a stronger claim through its administration of Greenland. Canada and Denmark still have unresolved territorial disputes in the high Arctic, and Russia and Norway have not fully delineated their maritime borders there.

Currently, the United States, Canada and Denmark are cooperating in exploring and mapping the subsurface features of the Arctic, gathering scientific data that will likely go into future submissions to the U.N. continental shelf commission.

But the United States is not legally eligible to participate in the process, as Congress has yet to ratify the Law of the Sea. Commission members have in the past said that they would most likely have to ignore a U.S. application if Washington submits one.

Copyright 2009 E&E Publishing. All Rights Reserved.
For more news on energy and the environment, visit http://www.greenwire.com/.

Published in

http://www.nytimes.com/gwire/2009/04/13/13greenwire-rising-seabed-claims-swamp-un-commission-10511.html

The Philippines claimed extended continental shelf over Benham Rise

By Tessa Jamandre, Vera Files

The Philippines has filed before the United Nations a claim over Benham Rise, an extinct volcanic ridge off t­he east coast of Luzon, beating the May 13 deadline for states to submit claims over their extended continental shelves.

The Philippine delegation deposited the claim with the UN Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf (CLCS) in New York City on April 8, making clear it was only a “partial submission.”

This means that other submissions, including those over disputed territories, would be made later. The disputed Kalayaan Island Group, which part of the Spratly Islands, and Scarborough Shoal are also said to be part of the country’s extended continental shelf and are believed to contain oil, natural gas, minerals and polymetals.

By filing the claim over Benham Rise, which is undisputed territory, the government has stopped the clock on the UN deadline and buys time to sort out border issues with its neighbors over the Kalayaan islands and Scarborough Shoal.

“As a gesture of good faith, the Philippines makes this partial submission in order to avoid creating or provoking maritime boundary disputes where there are none, or exacerbating them where they may exist, in areas where maritime boundaries have not yet been delimited between opposite or adjacent coastal States,” said the government in its partial submission.

The UN defines the continental shelf as the “the seabed and subsoil of the submarine areas that extend beyond its territorial sea” up to 200 nautical miles from the archipelagic baseline. A conti­nental shelf that goes farther than 200 nautical miles is called the extended continental shelf.

Claim to Benham Rise

The Philippine claim over Ben­ham Rise was prepared long before Congress enacted Republic Act 9522, or the Archipelagic Baselines Law, whose constitutionality is being questioned in the Supreme Court.

The Benham Rise Region is bounded by the Philippine Basin on the north and east, and by Luzon on the west and south. The submission asserted that Benham Rise is an extension of the Philippines’ continental shelf based on seismic, magnetic, gravity and other geological data collected.

The executive summary of the Philippine submission said the baselines used in the partial submission conform with the requirements of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) and were used as the basis for delineating the maritime territorial and jurisdictional zones, including the continental shelf.

It was Philippine Ambassador to the UN Hilario Davide who filed the country’s partial submission with the commission. Among those who traveled to New York for the submission were lawyer Henry Bensurto, secretary general of the Center for Maritime and Ocean Affairs of the Philippine Department of Foreign Affairs, and Ambassador Minerva Falcon, head of the department’s Foreign Service Institute.

A Philippine delegation is again expected to travel to New York to deposit the rest of the submissions in August, when the commission meets en banc.

Within UN rules

Bensurto said in an interview before leaving for New York that UN rules allow a partial submission. The government’s executive summary quoted the UN commission rules of procedure that “partial submissions may there­fore be made by a single coastal State for areas of its continental shelf that are not the subject of a maritime boundary dispute or a future maritime boundary delimitation.”

Galo Carrera-Hurtado of Mexico, a commissioner of the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf, helped the Philippines prepare its submission.

The Benham Rise Region is not subject to any maritime boundary disputes, claims or controversies, the executive summary said.

The country’s west coast facing the South China Sea is another matter. The Archipelagic Baselines Law has redrawn the country’s outer limits and from there, its extended continental shelf and exclusive economic zones overlap with Japan, China, Vietnam, Taiwan, Palau, Malaysia and Indonesia.

All these overlaps projected from the newly enacted baseline law will have to be subject to border delimitation agreements before a complete and final submission to the UN is made.

Bensurto said that if an agreement is reached in border talks, then the Philippines could submit a claim unilaterally or jointly with the country concerned.

“For the controversial areas we don’t give up any claim, but we allow time, process, diplomacy or whatever tools are available to resolve it because anyway that is not going to be subject to any deadline,” he said. “So we just . . . do a partial submission in an area that is noncontroversial, nondisputed because if we insist to submit on contested areas nothing will happen, it will just be shelved.”

Supreme Court case

University of the Philippines law professors Merlin Magallona and Harry Roque, their students in constitutional law and public international law, and Anakbayan party-list Rep. Risa Hontiveros have questioned the constitutionality of Republic Act 9522 before the Supreme Court.

They also asked the High Tribunal on April 2 to issue immediately a temporary restraining order and writ of preliminary prohibitory injunction upon learning that the Philippine delegation was leaving on April 5 to file a partial claim in New York, but to no avail.

The 71-page petition filed said the new law “radically revised” the definition of the Philippine archipelago under the Treaty of Paris, resulting in a roughly triangular delineation that excludes large areas of waters within the 600 miles by 1,200 miles rectangle enclosing the “Philippine archipelago” as defined in the Treaty of Paris.

Republic Act 9522 redrew the country’s baselines to comply with the UN convention requirements for an “archipelagic state,” in the process excluding the disputed Kalayaan islands and Scarborough Shoal from the main archipelago and classifying them instead of “regimes of islands.” The UN Convention on the Law of the Seas defines a regime of islands as islands or naturally formed areas of land surrounded by water that remain above water during high tide.
By declaring the Kalayaan islands and Scarborough Shoal as regimes of islands, Magallona, Roque and their co-petitioners said the country has lost 15,000 square nautical miles of terri­torial waters.

Republic Act 9522 weakened the country’s claim not only over the Kalayaan islands but also over Sabah, they argued.

The Kalayaan Island Group is part of the disputed Spratlys chain of islands being claimed in part by the Philippines, Malaysia, Taiwan and Brunei, and in whole by Vietnam and China. The Philippines and Malaysia, meanwhile, have conflicting claims over Sabah in northern Borneo.

No legal effect

Administrator Diony Ventura of the National Mapping and Resource Information Authority (NAMRIA), which is involved in preparing the claims, said the case against Republic Act 9522 would have no legal effect on the extended continental shelf as partially submitted to the UN.

“As long as our measurement is in accordance with the UN process and procedure, there is no effect,” he said. “Extended continental shelf is a different topic . . . We didn’t include R.A. [Republic Act] 9522 there. When we were preparing it then, the R.A. wasn’t there yet and the line that we used there is according to the guidelines of the CLCS.”

Ventura said the partial submission was arrived at from a purely scientific undertaking, including studies that prove that Benham Rise is the “natural prolongation” of the country’s land mass.

“There’s even the historical evolution of the land supported by a hydrographic survey and an underwater map,” he said.

From 2004 to 2008, multi-beam echo-sounding survey cruises were conducted to collect hydrographic data to determine the morphology of the seabed in the Benham Rise Region. The data were supplemented by additional data from international bathymetric surveys and an analysis of international research projects.

The Benham Rise Region also satisfies the 350-mile constraint line set by the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf since the outer limits of the continental shelf are located landward of the constraint line. The constraint line is located 350 miles from the baselines from which the breadth of the territorial sea is measured.

As to the Constraint Line requirement—2,500 meters plus 100 miles—the outer limits of the continental shelf beyond 200 miles in the Benham Rise Region is delineated by straight lines not more than 60 miles in length, connecting fixed points not more than 60 miles.

Published in

http://www.manilatimes.net/national/2009/april/13/yehey/top_stories/20090413top6.html

UK “considering approach” to Falklands’ continental shelf and May deadline

Thursday, April 9th 2009 - 5:28 am UTC

According to an update from the Foreign Office the UK is currently researching its submission to the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf, CLCS, in respect of those areas around the Falkland Islands and South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands.

Data has been collected but plans for the submission have not been finalized, “and we are considering our approach in view of the May 2009 deadline”.

The release also reveals that the UK discussed the issue with technical and legal experts from the Argentine Ministry of Foreign Affairs in 2001 and 2004, with a view to making a joint submission without prejudice to rival sovereignty claims.

However, “despite a UK proposal for a further meeting in 2007, no further bilateral meetings have taken place”.

The UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) confers on all coastal States sovereign rights for the purpose of exploring and exploiting the natural resources of its continental shelf.

UNCLOS provides that each coastal State possesses as a matter of international law a continental shelf which extends to 200 nautical miles from the shoreline (regardless of whether or not a geological continental shelf exists that far).

In addition, Article 76 of UNCLOS provides for coastal States to seek to establish an extended outer limit to the continental shelf beyond 200 nautical miles, up to 350 nautical miles from its coastline, or 100 miles from where the sea reaches a depth of 2,500 metres, and where specified geological conditions exist.

For this purpose, the State is required to submit evidence to the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf (CLCS), which will then make recommendations concerning the establishment of the outer limits of the State’s continental shelf.

As of 8 April 2009, the CLCS has received 21 submissions from coastal States, and we expect that many more will follow.

So far the UK in 2006 made its first partial submission, jointly with Ireland, France and Spain, in respect of the continental shelf in the Bay of Biscay. This submission is currently under consideration by the CLCS.

In May 2008, the UK made another partial submission in respect of the shelf around Ascension Island – this was formally presented to the CLCS on 27 August 2008.

Also in May 2008, the UK notified the CLCS that it is not making a submission with full supporting data to define an area of continental shelf beyond 200 nautical miles from the coast of British Antarctic Territory, but that it reserves the right to do so in the future.

On 31 March 2009, the UK made a partial submission in respect of the continental shelf in the Hatton Rockall area of the NE Atlantic. Informal discussions have been taking place with Iceland, Ireland and Denmark (on behalf of the Faroe Islands), all of whom believe that they too may have a geological case for an extended continental shelf in the Hatton Rockall area.

Finally the chapter on the South Atlantic Islands

In cases where a dispute exists between the coastal States concerned, the Rules of Procedure of the CLCS require it to decline to examine any submission which would prejudice delimitation between them without the agreement of the States concerned. Ideally, the States concerned will agree on a common approach before submitting to the Commission. The best solution in such areas may be for the States concerned to make a joint submission, or at least separate but complementary submissions.

Regarding Antarctica, the right to an extended continental shelf under the UN Law of the Sea has to be considered against the provisions of the Antarctic Treaty, which put all territorial claims in abeyance.

Of the seven Claimant States in Antarctica, Australia made a submission to the UN Commission for the Limits of Continental Shelf in respect of the Australian Antarctic Territory in 2004.

Australia submitted full co-ordinates of its continental shelf margin, but asked that the CLCS simply store the data and not consider it (because of the Antarctic Treaty).

In 2006, New Zealand notified the CLCS that it was not submitting data for the continental shelf around its Ross Dependency in Antarctica, but that it reserved the right to do so in the future. The UK followed the New Zealand model in May 2008.

The UK expects that the remaining Claimant States will also follow one of these two approaches.

Published in

http://en.mercopress.com/2009/04/09/uk-considering-approach-to-falklands-continental-shelf-and-may-deadline

Mauritius and Seychelles submitted Continental Shelf extenstion claim

On 1 December 2008, the Republic of Mauritius and the Republic of Seychelles submitted to the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf, in accordance with Article 76, paragraph 8, of the Convention, information on the limits of the continental shelf appurtenant to the Republic of Mauritius and the Republic of Seychelles, which lie beyond 200 nautical miles from the baselines from which the breadth of the territorial sea of the two States is measured in the region of the Mascarene Plateau.

It is noted that the Convention entered into force for the Republic of Mauritius on 4 December 1994 and for the Republic of Seychelles on 16 November 1994.

The notes accompanying the submission state that "in accordance with paragraph 3 of Annex 1 to the Rules of Procedure, this Joint Submission represents a partial submission in respect of a portion only of the extended Continental Shelf claimed by each of the two submitting States. Submissions for such other portions of extended Continental Shelf shall be made by each of the two submitting States individually at an appropriate time."

In accordance with the Rules of Procedure of the Commission, a communication is being circulated to all Member States of the United Nations, as well as States Parties to the Convention, in order to make public the executive summary of the joint submission, including all charts and coordinates contained in that summary.

The consideration of the submission made by the Republic of Mauritius and the Republic of Seychelles will be included in the provisional agenda of the twenty-third session of the Commission to be held in New York from 2 March to 9 April 2009.

Upon completion of the consideration of the submission, the Commission will make recommendations pursuant to Article 76 of the Convention.

Published on 1 December in

http://un.org/Depts/los/clcs_new/submissions_files/submission_musc.htm

Japan submitted Continental Shelf claim to UN

On 12 November 2008, Japan submitted to the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf, in accordance with Article 76, paragraph 8, of the Convention, information on the limits of its continental shelf beyond 200 nautical miles from the baselines from which the breadth of the territorial sea is measured.

It is noted that the Convention entered into force for Japan on 20 July 1996.

In accordance with the Rules of Procedure of the Commission, a communication is being circulated to all Member States of the United Nations, as well as States Parties to the Convention, in order to make public the executive summary of the submission, including all charts and coordinates contained in that summary.

The consideration of the submission made by Japan will be included in the provisional agenda of the twenty-third session of the Commission to be held in New York in March-April 2009.
Upon completion of the consideration of the submission, the Commission will make recommendations pursuant to Article 76 of the Convention.

Published on 12 November in

http://un.org/Depts/los/clcs_new/submissions_files/submission_jpn.htm

Decision on the Continental Shelf Delineation Deadline

Check out in the following link:

http://www.un.org/Depts/los/meeting_states_parties/documents/splos_183e_advance.pdf

India Bangladesh Maritime Boundary

Sep 16th, 2008 By Sindh Today Category: India

Sep 16 (IANS) The location of a tiny island and the flow of a river into the Bay of Bengal are the main points of negotiation as India and Bangladesh discuss their maritime boundary after a gap of 28 years.

The island is called South Talpatty by Bangladesh and Purbasha or New Moore Island by India. The flow of Haribhanga river’s channels around it is one of the principal points of dispute between the two neighbours.

As per the rules drawn up by Sir Cyril Radcliffe for demarcating the border when India was partitioned and Pakistan was created in 1947, if there is a river on the border, then the mid-current of the river will be the borderline. Since its emergence in 1971, Bangladesh has been identifying its border according to the Radcliffe rules.

Bangladesh officials claim that the main channel of the Hariabhanga river flows through the west side of South Talpatty while their Indian counterparts claim the eastern channel is the main flow, The Daily Star newspaper said Tuesday.

The island is still in formation, visible only during low tides, emerging in the estuary of the Hariabhanga river, the bordering river in the south-western part of the country.

‘We’ve just started talks and the discussion has been very cordial,’ said M.A.K. Mahmud, additional secretary to the foreign ministry, who is leading the 15-member Bangladesh delegation at the three day talks that began Monday.

The northern reach of the Bay of Bengal is shared by India, Bangladesh and Myanmar. While India is both conducting its off-shore operations and allocating blocks for exploration to foreign multinationals, the latter approach is adopted by Bangladesh and Myanmar too.

In recent years, claims of overlapping territories have piled up with the three, particularly Bangladesh and India, challenging each other’s decisions.

Dhaka is claiming rights over an exclusive economic zone for extraction of marine resources, the New Age newspaper said Tuesday.

In the absence of an accepted exclusive economic zone, India and Myanmar recently opposed Bangladesh’s offshore block bidding for exploration of oil and gas even within the territorial sea of the country.

Also under discussion is the issue of continental shelves in the bay. The UN Convention on Law of the Sea allows a country to claim 350 nautical miles as its continental shelve.

Bangladesh and India had last held talks in 1980 to iron out differences on the contentious maritime boundary in the resource-rich Bay of Bengal.

Dhaka says New Delhi has been lukewarm to talks on maritime boundary, but its officials also blame their own lack of preparation and expertise to counter the Indian claims.

As signatories to the UN convention, Dhaka and New Delhi must submit their claims to the UN by 2011 and 2009, respectively.

Published in

http://www.sindhtoday.net/south-asia/21046.htm

New Zealand Continental Shelf Extension

September 5, 2008, 10:35 am

New Zealand could be on the verge of winning a territorial and economic bonanza, with word due any day on a claim to 1.6 million square kilometres of continental shelf.

The claim was lodged with the United Nations Law of the Sea Commission two years ago after a 10-year $44 million research project to work out the limits of the shelf.

If successful, New Zealand would gain jurisdiction over an area of seabed six times the size of its landmass, giving it control of potentially enormous mineral resources that lie on or under the seabed beyond the existing 200-nautical mile exclusive economic zone.

It includes a large area in the Tasman called Lord Howe Rise, a block extending north into the Pacific Ocean towards Tonga and Fiji, an area skirting the Chathams Rise to the east, and additional areas to the far south.

Foreign Affairs Ministry legal adviser Gerard van Bohemen told The Dominion Post newspaper the commission was believed to have made its decision, and the ministry expected to hear any day.

Even with a favourable ruling, agreements on New Zealand shelf boundaries still had to be reached with Fiji and Tonga.

Undersea boundaries in the Tasman Sea and the southern oceans were agreed with Australia four years ago.

GNS Science ocean exploration chief Ray Wood said securing the shelf would be a huge benefit for New Zealand .

There could be large oil deposits on the Lord Howe and Chatham rises, gold and other valuable mineral deposits on the Three Kings Ridge to the north of New Zealand , and manganese nodules worth billions in the southern parts of the shelf.

"The real challenge for us now is to work out what we have and how we use it in the future," Dr Wood said.

Published in
http://nz.news.yahoo.com/a/-/top-stories/4991767/ruling-bring-economic-bonanza-nz/

Australia extended its continental shelf

Australia's submission for jurisdiction over an additional 2.5 million square kilometres of seabed has been confirmed by the United Nations Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf.

The Commission has confirmed the location of the outer limit of Australia's continental shelf in nine distinct marine regions, which entitles Australia to large areas of continental shelf beyond 200 nautical miles.

This decision means Australia now has jurisdiction over an extra 2.5 million square kilometres of continental shelf, which is almost fine times the size of France, almost ten times the size of New Zealand, and approximately the same size as Western Australia.

In these areas, Australia has exclusive rights to what exists on the seabed, including oil, gas and biological resources.

"This is a major boost to Australia's offshore resource potential and also to our ability to preserve the marine environment on the seabed," Minister for Resources and Energy, the Hon Martin Ferguson AM MP, said.

The confirmation is in response to a submission made through a close partnership between Geoscience Australia, the Attorney General's Department and the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade. "It is the culmination of 15 years of cutting edge work, carried out under Geoscience Australia's Law of the Sea and Maritime Boundaries Advice project", Geoscience Australia's Chief Executive Officer, Neil Williams said.

"The dedication and ongoing commitment shown by the project team has resulted in this fantastic outcome for Australia", he said.

Under the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, the continental shelf extends at least 200 nautical miles from Australia's coastline.

Australia is also entitled to the submerged prolongation of its landmass extending beyond 200 nautical miles (the so-called extended continental shelf), to limits defined in the 1982 Convention.

To confirm Australia's entitlement, Geoscience Australia analysed an enormous amount of new data gathered on 17 marine surveys conducted over eight years in some of the most remote and inhospitable parts of the world's oceans.
Minister's media release
Map of continental shelf extensions [PDF 747KB]

Published in
http://www.ga.gov.au/news/index.jsp#clcs