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.

Lebanon boundary delimitation issues with Israel

Aug 4, 2011 7:20 PM GMT+0400
Reporter: Nayla Razzouk in Amman, Jordan, at nrazzouk2@bloomberg.net.

Editor: Stephen Voss at sev@bloomberg.net

Lebanon’s parliament approved the demarcation of the country’s maritime border amid a dispute with Israel over the drilling for natural gas and oil in the Mediterranean Sea.

Maynamar Bngladesh maritime boundary dispute at the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea

Dhaka, Aug 26 (bdnews24.com)—A public hearing on the dispute over delimitation of the maritime boundary between Bangladesh and Myanmar in the Bay of Bengal will begin on Sept 8.

An Omani Citizen urges Amnesty International to adequately examine and investigate what is brought to it

The following is an Omani senior citizen's (Mohammed Al Mahruqy) response to Amnesty International to their article on the Oman protests

7th April 2011

International Secretariat

Amnesty International

1 Easton Street

London

WC1X 0DW, UK

Telephone: +44-20-74135500

Fax number: +44-20-79561157

The Korean chemical freighter rescued from Somali pirates arrived Oman

By Moon Gwang-lip [joe@joongang.co.kr]

The Samho Jewelry, the Korean chemical freighter rescued from a group of Somali pirates, arrived at the port of Muscat, Oman, yesterday, according to Seoul officials.

South Korea freed crew members aboard a South Korean-operated ship

Seoul - Naval special forces from South Korea on Friday stormed a South Korean-operated ship hijacked by Somali pirates in the Arabian Sea, freed all 21 crew members aboard and killed eight pirates, South Korea's military said.

Calls for Talks on Korean Maritime Boundary

An international group dedicated to preventing conflict warns of the risk of a wider conflict on the Korean peninsula. The report comes a month after an exchange of artillery fire that left four South Koreans dead.

Saudi Arabia and Kuwait to demarcate their disputed border

Thursday, July 22, 2010    

ABU DHABI — Two leading Gulf Arab states have agreed to demarcate their disputed border. Kuwait and Saudi Arabia have agreed to a project that would demarcate their 250-kilometer border. The two countries have selected and signed a contract with a New Zealand firm to conduct the border delineation. "The contract was signed and maps will be drawn in accordance with extremely high standards," Kuwaiti Interior Deputy Undersecretary Maj. Gen. Abdullah Al Muhana said.

Al Muhana said New Zealand's NZ Aerial Mapping was awarded the contract to delineate the Saudi-Kuwaiti border. The general, who said several companies competed for the project, did not specify the value of the contract.

"The company will soon begin operations," Al Muhana, responsible for border security, said.

On July 20, the two Gulf Cooperation Council states concluded border talks in the Saudi port of Jedda, Middle East Newsline reported. The Saudi delegation was led by Maj. Gen. Zamim Al Sawat, director-general of the Saudi Border Guard.

Officials said both GCC states have formed technical teams to monitor the border demarcation. They said Kuwait and Saudi Arabia have enhanced military and security cooperation and were planning naval and other exercises over the next year.

Published in

http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtribune/WTARC/2010/me_gulf0693_07_22.asp

United Nations Resolusion

A United Nations resolution (UN resolution) is a formal text adopted by a United Nations (UN) body. Although any UN body can issue resolutions, in practice

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

The Cause of the explosion in the Strait of Hormuz is yet unknown

UPDATED ON:

Thursday, July 29, 2010

19:29 Mecca time, 16:29 GMT

A suspected explosion that damaged a Japanese oil tanker in the Straits of Hormuz, between Iran and Oman, could have been caused by an "attack", the ship's owners have said.

The ship was diverted to a port in the United Arab Emirates after it "suffered damage to its hull caused by an explosion which seemed to be an attack from external sources," Mitsui O.S.K Lines Ltd said in a statement on Thursday.

Japan's transport ministry confirmed that Mitsui O.S.K Lines Ltd had reported the incident as a possible attack. "A crew member saw light on the horizon just before the explosion, so [ship owner Mitsui O.S.K.] believes there is a possibility it was caused by an outside attack," it said.

However, the company's statement contradicted earlier claims that the damage to the M. Star on Wednesday had occured after it was hit by a freak wave. A coast guard official in Oman, in whose territorial waters the incident took place, told the Reuters news agency that "the boat was hit by a tremor ... we have no information of an attack".

'Mystery and intrigue'

Dan Nolan, Al Jazeera's correspondent in the UAE, said that details of the incident were unclear. "It is certainly shrouded in mystery and intrigue ... a port official here in the UAE was questioned about what may have caused this, he was quite vague about what it could be," Nolan said.

"When asked if it was possible it could be a sea mine, he said that yes, it is possible. It was a collision of some sort and anything is possible, it could be a submarine, it could be anything."

The damage to the vessel's hull is being examined by experts off Fujairah, one of the UAE's emirates, and the incident is under investiation. The ship's owners from Japan have hired a Dubai-based specialist in military attacks to head [to the port] to also cast an eye over this," Nolan said.

Will Geddes, a London-based security specialist, told Al Jazeera that pirates could have been behind the alleged attack. "We know that pirates will try and stop vessels by two means: rocket propelled grenades or ramming the boat," he said. Geddes said it seemed unlikely that the tanker had hit a mine as that would have probably breached the tanker's hull.

The M. Star had been filled with sabout 2.3 million barrels of crude oil on Tuesday at the UAE port of Das Island and was heading for Chiba port in Japan.

Around 17 million barrels of oil are transported through the Straits of Hormuz every day.

Al-Qaeda has previously threatened to carry out attacks in the key transit route for much of the world's supply of crude.

Source: Al Jazeera and agencies

 

Published in

http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2010/07/2010729151751119208.html

Mystery surrounds latest Strait of Hormuz incident

Thursday, July 29, 2010
By Patrick Goodenough, International Editor

(CNSNews.com) – Mystery surrounds an incident in which a laden oil tanker was damaged in the Strait of Hormuz Wednesday. Maritime and shipping officials are at odds over whether the cause was an intentional explosion or a freak wave caused by seismic activity.

Whatever turns out to be the case, the incident again highlights the vulnerability of the world’s most important energy waterway, one which Iran has periodically threatened to block, in retaliation for international pressure over its nuclear program.

Up to 40 percent of the world’s daily oil supply – including three-quarters of Japan’s needs – traverses the Persian Gulf’s Strait of Hormuz chokepoint en route to markets in the West and Asia. Situated between Iran, Oman and the United Arab Emirates, the channel is less than 30 miles across at its narrowest point.

The 160,000-ton M. Star, a Japanese-owned, Marshall islands-flagged supertanker, was anchored off Fujairah in the UAE on Thursday, undergoing inspection of its damaged hull.

A photo released by the UAE’s WAM news agency showed a large, square-shaped dent in the vessel’s hull, near the waterline.

The unexplained incident in Omani waters early Wednesday morning was first described by the owners, Mitsui O.S.K. Lines (MOL), as “an explosion which seemed to be an attack from external sources.” The statement that prompted speculation that pirates, terrorists or a military force may have been responsible.

MOL said one of the crew was lightly injured, but none of the 270,200 tons of crude oil taken onboard in the UAE the previous day had leaked from the damaged hull.

The “explosion” theory appeared to be backed up by a statement from the Japanese transportation ministry, which said one of the 31-member crew reported seeing “a flash on the horizon immediately before the blast.”

But maritime officials in the UAE, Iran and Oman said that the M. Star had been hit by a large wave. A UAE port captain was quoted as telling local media the wave was “a result of seismic shock” while an Iranian official cited an “earthquake.” One report cited the Omani coastguard as saying the wave was triggered by a 3.2 magnitude earthquake in the Iranian port city of Bandar Abbas.

The U.S. Geological Survey, which monitors earthquakes worldwide and lists all events 2.5 magnitude and bigger, has no report of any quake in that region in recent days. The most recent quake in the region was a 4.8 magnitude tremor on Saturday, July 24, in southern Iran.

The Pacific Tsunami Warning Center also has had no tsunami warnings in the entire Indian Ocean region since June 12. Prof. Mike Sandiford, earthquake expert and director the Melbourne Energy Institute at the University of Melbourne in Australia, said Thursday there was “zero chance” of a wave being caused by a quake four days earlier. A “submarine slope failure” – an underwater landslide – could be a possibility, he said.

MOL was sticking to its guns Thursday, with an official telling a briefing in Tokyo a quake-induced wave was unlikely the cause of the incident, and that the damage suggested the ship had been hit from the outside. A spokesman for the U.S. Navy Fifth Fleet, based in Bahrain, said the ship had reported by radio that an “explosion” had occurred. The Navy had offered assistance, but the ship’s master determined it was not necessary. The ship made its way to Fujairah under its own steam.

The spokesman said the M. Star incident did not affect the shipping lane. State Department spokesman Philip Crowley said the U.S. had no information to suggest that the event was anything other than an accident but would be “watching carefully as more information comes in on that.”

Piracy, terrorism, military action

Maritime security experts have long warned of the danger of a terrorist or pirate attack on a supertanker in one of the world’s strategic sea chokepoints, which include the Strait of Hormuz, the Malacca Strait between Singapore, Malaysia and Indonesia, Gibraltar and the Panama and Suez canals.

Apart from the environmental impact should a tanker’s hull be intentionally or accidentally breached, the economic cost and disruption of an incident blocking a crucial waterway for a period of time would be massive.

The Strait of Hormuz is hundreds of miles away from the area where pirates have been operating in recent years – the Red Sea and mouth of the Gulf of Aden and the coast of Somalia. According to the International Maritime Bureau (IMB) Piracy Reporting Center, however, there have been reports of suspicious activities closer to the Gulf – off Oman’s Arabian Sea coast, including sightings of suspicious small boats and “in some cases ships chased with unknown intent.”

Islamist terrorists have targeted ships before. The destroyer USS Cole< was bombed in Yemen’s Aden port in 2000, an attack that killed 17 sailors, and boat-borne suicide bombers attacked the French oil tanker Limburg off the coast of Yemen in 2002.

In 2004 two sailors died when a U.S. Navy patrol vessel intercepted a dhow heading for an oil terminal in Iraq and the dhow exploded in an apparent suicide bombing. In 2005, two U.S. Navy ships docked in Jordan’s Aqaba port were targeted by Katyusha rockets. Al-Qaeda-affiliated terrorists claimed responsibility.

In what is believed to be the deadliest terrorist attack at sea, an al-Qaeda linked group in the Philippines bombed the Superferry 14 passenger ferry near Manila in 2004, killing 116 people.

The Iranian government and its Islamic Revolution Guards Corps (IRGC) has on several occasions in recent years threatened to close the Strait of Hormuz, typically in response to Western statements or pressure relating to its nuclear activities.

Last month Tehran warned that if Iranian ships were stopped and searched as part of a sanctions regime it would retaliate by stopping foreign ships in the Gulf and Strait of Hormuz.

In 2008 Iranian gunboats approached U.S. warships in the Gulf in what the Pentagon said was a deliberately provocative maneuver.

Oil tankers traversing the strait do so along two-mile wide channels demarcated in each direction, sailing through Iranian territorial waters in the north and Omani waters in the south.

Under the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea, ships have the right of “innocent passage” through the territorial seas of a coastal state.

In the event of the chokepoint’s closure, an alternative route for the oil would be via the 745-mile East-West pipeline across Saudi Arabia to the Red Sea, from where tankers would have to sail north through the Suez canal or south through the Gulf of Aden and piracy-affected Horn of Africa waters.

According to the Department of Energy’s Energy Information Administration, the Strait of Hormuz route accounts for up to 17 million barrels of oil a day. By comparison, the Saudi pipeline only has the capacity to handle five million barrels a day.

Alternative routes would also be longer, further pushing up costs, the EIA says.

Published in

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/70166

Lebanon-Israel natural gas

By BASSEM MROUE (AP)

BEIRUT — The discovery of large natural gas reserves under the waters of the eastern Mediterranean could potentially mean a huge economic windfall for Israel and Lebanon, both resource-poor nations — if it doesn't spark new war between them.

The Hezbollah militant group has blared warnings that Israel plans to steal natural gas from Lebanese territory and vows to defend the resources with its arsenal of rockets. Israel says the fields it is developing do not extend into Lebanese waters, a claim experts say appears to be correct, but the maritime boundary between the two countries — still officially at war — has never been precisely set.

"Lebanon's need for the resistance has doubled today in light of Israeli threats to steal Lebanon's oil wealth," Hezbollah's Executive Council chief Hashem Safieddine said last month. The need to protect the offshore wealth "pushes us in the future to strengthen the resistance's capabilities."

The threats cast a shadow over what could be a financial boon for both nations, with energy companies finding what appear to be substantial natural gas deposits in their waters.

Israel is far ahead in the race to develop the resources. Two fields, Tamar and Dalit, discovered last year, are due to start producing in 2012, and experts say their estimated combined reserves of 5.5 trillion cubic feet (160 billion cubic meters) of natural gas can cover Israel's energy needs for the next two decades.

In June, the U.S. energy company Noble Energy, part of a consortium developing the fields, predicted that Israel will also have enough gas to export to Europe and Asia from a third field — Leviathan, thought to hold up to 16 trillion cubic feet (450 billion cubic meters) of gas.

Israel relies entirely on imports to meet its energy needs, spending billions to bring natural gas from Egypt and coal from a variety of countries. So just freeing the country from that reliance would have a major impact.

When Tamar begins producing it could lower Israel's energy costs by a $1 billion a year and bring $400 million a year in royalties into government coffers. That suggests a total of about $40 billion in savings and $16 billion in government revenues over the total yield of the field. Those numbers would only rise as Leviathan comes on line.

"Israel's always looked for oil," said Paul Rivlin, a senior research fellow with Tel Aviv University's Dayan center. "But I don't think it ever thought of itself as becoming a producer. And now that you've got a high-tech economy that's doing quite well, this comes as an added bonus."

Hezbollah's warnings, however, quickly followed the announcement by Houston, Texas-based Noble Energy.

Lebanese parliament speaker Nabih Berri, a Hezbollah ally, warned that Israel is "turning into an oil emirate while ignoring the fact that the field extends, according to the maps, into Lebanon's territorial waters."

Israel's Petroleum and Mining commissioner at the National Infrastructure Ministry Yaakov Mimran, called those claims "nonsense," saying Leviathan and the other two fields are all within Israel's economic zone.

"Those noises occur when they smell gas. Until then, they sit quietly and let the other side spend the money," Mimran told the Israeli daily Haaretz.

Maps from Noble Energy show Leviathan within Israel's waters. An official with Norway's Petroleum Geo-Services, which is surveying gas fields in Lebanese waters, told The Associated Press that from Noble's reports there is no reason to think Leviathan extends into Lebanon. The official spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized by his company to speak on the subject.

The rumblings are worrisome because Israel and Hezbollah each accuse the other of intending to spark a new conflict following their devastating 2006 war. That fighting, in which Hezbollah's capture of two Israeli soldiers in a cross-border raid sparked a massive Israeli bombardment, killed about 1,200 Lebanese and 160 Israelis.

Since then, there has been a rare interval of peace. Hezbollah, a close ally of Syria and Iran, has not fired a rocket into Israel since. Israeli officials, however, say they believe Hezbollah has managed to triple its prewar arms stockpile to more than 40,000 rockets.

The warnings from Hezbollah and Berri could be as much for domestic consumption as directed as Israel, aiming to press for the passage of a long-delayed draft oil law, needed before any Lebanese fields can be developed.

Oil and gas exploration has been a source of disagreement between Lebanese politicians over the past decade. The change of several governments and disputes over what company should do the surveying have caused delays.

In October, Petroleum Geo-Services said fields in Cypriot and Lebanese waters "may prove to be an exciting new province for oil and gas in the next few years," noting signs of deposits in Lebanon, though their size is still not known. "It is very encouraging for Lebanon," the PGS official told AP.

Any finds could help Lebanon's government pay off what is one of the highest debt rates in the world, at about $52 billion, or 147 percent of the gross domestic product.

Israel and Lebanon are among the few countries in the Middle East without substantial, lucrative natural resources. Israel has built a place for itself with a powerful high-tech sector, while Lebanon has boomed in recent years with tourism and real estate investment. While the gas may not transform them into Gulf-style spigots of petro-cash, it would be a major boost.

Rivlin doubts Israel could become a significant exporter, saying nearby countries don't need or aren't willing to buy from it, and the costs of liquifying gas for transport to further markets like Europe may be prohibitive. But Eytan Gilboa, a political science professor at Bar-Ilan University, said that with the world "so hungry for energy," Israel won't have a problem finding buyers.

But the development raises security worries, as the offshore gas infrastructure could become a target. During the 2006 fighting, Hezbollah succeeded in hitting Israeli warships off Lebanon with its rockets.

"Once those rigs start producing gas, it's going to be difficult to secure them," Gilboa said. "So on the one hand, you reduce dependency on imports in times of crisis, but at the same time, you make yourself vulnerable because those sites are exposed."

Associated Press Writer Karoun Demirjian contributed to this report from Jerusalem.

Copyright © 2010 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.

Published in

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gxKZd-V-idcFjD-oOHo4US2y202wD9H773G00

Laws on captured pirates

Page last updated at 12:06 GMT, Thursday, 6 May 2010 13:06 UK

Warships patrolling Indian Ocean waters off the Somali coast are enjoying greater success in capturing pirates - but the legal challenges posed by 21st Century piracy raises question on what to do with suspects after they have been caught

Isn't it the responsibility of the country whose navy apprehended the pirates to prosecute?

The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea defines piracy as a universal crime and gives sovereign nations the right to seize and prosecute pirates. But whether a country wants to prosecute arrested pirates depends on its own law. Experts say that several countries do not know how to incorporate the convention into their own jurisdiction.

According to the report Fighting Piracy by Commander James Kraska and Captain Brian Wilson: "On the high seas or in any other place outside the jurisdiction of a state, such as Somalia's ungoverned territorial seas, any nation's warship may take action against piracy. Pirated ships may be boarded, the pirates can be detained and the property on board the vessel can be seized and submitted to admiralty and criminal courts. The registry or "flag" of the attacked vessel, the state of nationality of any of the victims or crew, the nationality of the on-scene warship, and, in some cases, coastal and port states, all have a valid basis for asserting jurisdiction. But it can take weeks or months to sort out these logistics and legal issues."

About 20 warships from the navies of half a dozen countries operating under US, European Union and Nato commands police the pirate-infested waters. Many have signed agreements with Kenya, enabling them to send apprehended pirates there for trial.

Why are many countries reluctant to prosecute?

Suspected pirates have been taken to the US, France and the Netherlands, among others, for prosecution. Russia is reportedly considering bringing a group of suspected pirates to Moscow for trial.

But maritime experts have pointed out that the length of time taken to bring some of those cases to trial indicates the complexities involved.

In some cases, legal arguments have centred on how long the suspects were kept in detention before either getting legal assistance or being charged - possibly violating the legal process of the countries involved.

Cyrus Mody from the International Maritime Bureau says the logistical and legal burdens involved in transporting pirate suspects to Western countries can be daunting.

"It is difficult getting the pieces together, the evidence, the witnesses. Who's going to pay for it all?

"And if a prosecution fails, the burden lies with that country. There is always the prospect that the suspected pirate might then claim asylum," he told the BBC.

In some cases, suspects are simply released after they have been disarmed because of the potential legal headaches.

Why do most of the arrested pirates end up in Kenya?

Kenya, which borders Somalia, has signed agreements with the European Union, the US, Britain, Canada, China and Denmark to prosecute and jail pirates. It has been promised financial aid in return.

There are more than 100 suspected pirates in custody, either awaiting, or already on trial. But the process is slow - lasting up to a year - and costly.

In May, Foreign Affairs Minister Moses Wetangula said Kenya was unwilling to take on any more prosecutions and was to review the agreements. He said some of the countries had failed to give adequate financial support to Kenya's strained justice system.

Mr Wetangula said a key problem was what would happen to the pirates after their jail terms were up.

What happens to the others?

Nato, Russia and India, among others, have not signed an agreement with Kenya and so their navies need to determine whether or not to bring the pirates home for trial or look for another Gulf of Aden littoral state to prosecute. This has proved difficult.

According to reports, the Indian Ocean island nation of the Seychelles is emerging as the second regional centre for trying pirates seized by EU naval units. Working with the UN, the country recently amended its criminal code to enable it to prosecute pirates under universal jurisdiction.

The EU has also opened negotiations with other countries in the region, including South Africa and Tanzania, in the hope of reaching agreements enabling the prosecution of suspected pirates.

What about setting up an international court?

In April, the United Nations Security Council adopted a Russian proposal to consider the creation of a new court to deal with piracy. UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon will be asked to report within three months on options for "a regional tribunal or an international tribunal and corresponding imprisonment arrangements".

Some experts have argued, however, that this option would be costly and judicially cumbersome. There is still the issue of where convicted pirates would be held.

Published in

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/8664623.stm

Tourists from UAE with certain job categories cannot enter Oman

Essam al Ghalib
ealghalib@thenational.ae
Last Updated: May 02. 2010 1:21PM UAE / May 2. 2010 9:21AM GMT

AL AIN // Residents are being turned away from border crossings between the UAE and Oman because of the type of job they have.


Officials at crossings are enforcing a long-standing agreement between the countries that only expatriates who have what are considered professional occupations can pass into Oman from the UAE without having to apply for a visa.

According to one Omani immigration officer, teachers, doctors, lawyers anyone who has a professional occupation are free to travel into Oman. However, those who do other jobs, such as in the service industry, construction or sales, would not be allowed

The rule, which is to be implemented at all checkpoints, was previously in effect, but border officials only began enforcing it this year, said Captain Ahmad al Shamsi, an Emirati official at the Hilli checkpoint, which links Al Ain with Buraimi and is for non-GCC citizens.

One resident, Colin Davids, was turned away from the checkpoint when he attempted to cross into Buraimi for a camping trip with friends. An immigration agent refused to let him out of the UAE and into Oman.

“He wouldn’t tell me why, but referred me to the visa officer in charge, instead,” said Mr Davids, 27, who had made the crossing numerous times before. “I went inside to ask why and was shocked when he told me I had what he called a ‘low job’.”

Mr Davids works at the Al Ain Rotana hotel as a barman at Moodz nightclub. The job description on his visa says he is a waiter.


“The immigration officer told me that there was a list of occupations that were not free to travel and that mine was too low down to allow me across the border into Oman,” Mr Davids said.

An official in the consular section of the UAE Embassy in Muscat confirmed the agreement between Oman and the Emirates.

"People with certain occupations cannot leave the UAE and people with certain occupations cannot enter Oman,” she said. “There is an agreement between the two countries that is being adhered to.”

People with affected occupations who want to visit Oman need to apply for a visa at the Omani Embassy in Abu Dhabi, she said.

Khaled Hardan, an official at the Omani embassy in Abu Dhabi, confirmed that a prospective visitor’s occupation is a factor considered when issuing a visa, adding that regulations had become more stringent throughout the GCC recently, and not just in Oman.

As for Mr Davids and others like him, Mr Hardan said: “If he would like a visitor’s visa, he can come to the Omani embassy in Abu Dhabi and apply for one.”

An Omani immigration officer, who asked not to be named, said in the past many people would leave the UAE and enter Oman from Hilli. They would then stay and work illegally in Buraimi.

“In the case of the Hilli border crossing into Buraimi, there isn’t an official Omani checkpoint for 40km down the road to Muscat,” he said. “For people with professional jobs, it would be harder for them to find work illegally in Buraimi, whereas a carpenter can find odd jobs to do here and there.”

Kathryn Holbrook, a 29-year-old geography teacher at Al Ain English School, who was with Mr Davids when he tried to cross, was stunned to learn that he could not.

“My occupation is listed as a teacher so I was told I could cross into Oman, but not Colin,” she said. “I complained to people at the border who told me there was a new list that came out this year.”

Days after Mr Davids’s experience, Arianne Galez, 31, from the Philippines, stood in front of a visa officer in disbelief. After making regular trips to visit her family, who were expecting her, she was suddenly being denied.

The officer explained to Ms Galez that certain occupations, including hers – a receptionist at a dental clinic – were not considered professional. “My cousin and sister work in Sohar,” Ms Galez said. “I don’t know when I am going to see them again.”

Published in
http://www.thenational.ae/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100502/NATIONAL/705019880/1010

Omani War ship saves life at sea and USA Navy ship captures pirates

By Cindy Clayton

The Virginian-Pilot

© April 7, 2010

The Navy guided-missile destroyer McFaul has captured 10 pirates after an attack on a ship near Salalah, Oman.

The pirates pulled alongside the motor vessel Rising Sun on Tuesday and were firing small arms and rocket-propelled grenades, prompting the crew to send out a distress call, according to a news release from the U.S. Navy.

The Rising Sun’s crew increased its speed and used evasive maneuvers such as spraying the attackers with fire hoses, the release says.

The maneuvers worked and the pirates broke off their attack and returned to their mother ship, an Indian cargo dhow under their control.

The Oman Navy warship Al Sharquiyah arrived first on the scene, and as it approached the dhow, nine sailors who were being held hostage jumped into the water, the release says.

One of the sailors drowned, but the others were taken aboard the Omani Navy ship.

The McFaul arrived as the Omani crew was helping the sailors who escaped. The McFaul’s crew directed the pirates to surrender by putting their hands in the air and gathering on the bow of the seized dhow. As they complied, they could be seen throwing weapons overboard.

Two boarding teams from the McFaul took control of the dhow and detained the pirates, who were transferred to the U.S. destroyer Carney, where they will be held until they can be transferred for prosecution, the release says.

The surviving sailors who escaped their captors aboard the dhow were returned to the vessel, according to the U.S. Navy.

The McFaul is attached to the Dwight D. Eisenhower Carrier Strike Group in support of maritime security in the U.S. 5th Fleet area of responsibility.

The capture comes about a week after two other Navy ships encountered pirates near the Seychelles.

Late last week, the destroyer Farragut was called to the scene of a Sierra Leone-flagged tanker that came under attack by three pirate skiffs, according to a Navy news release. The Farragut is homeported in Mayport, Fla.

An SH-60 B Seahawk helicopter from the Farragut went to monitor the situation while the pirates’ skiffs were boarded. The crew of the Swedish patrol aircraft watched as the pirates threw equipment overboard. Eleven pirates were found aboard the skiffs and allowed to leave after coalition forces ensured they had no other equipment to conduct attacks.

The mother skiff was sunk.

On Thursday, the Norfolk-based frigate Nicholas took small-arms fire from suspected pirates in the Indian Ocean. The ship returned fire and captured five pirates.

Published in

http://hamptonroads.com/2010/04/norfolkbased-navy-ship-captures-pirates-gulf-oman

Visa rules attract property investors in Oman

Bradley Hope

bhope@thenational.ae

Last Updated: April 01. 2010 10:57PM UAE / April 1. 2010 6:57PM GMT

 

MUSCAT // Oman’s property market is showing new vitality, thanks in part to the government’s easing of its visa policy.

Like other Gulf markets, sales of new homes in Oman slowed to a crawl after the global financial crisis. Prices in Muscat dropped by an average of between 30 and 40 per cent, with high-end villas falling even further, according to the property consultancy Cluttons.

Now, with the new visa policy in place for several months, sales have picked up and prices have stabilised in three of the country’s largest developments: Muscat Hills, The Wave and Shangri-La Barr al Jissah. Expatriate homeowners in special zones can now obtain two-year visas that are renewable.

“There has been a pickup” since last month, said Francis Selvaraj, the head of professional services at Cluttons. “There is more certainty and confidence. A lot of funds are also coming back into the market.”

Oman’s success in sparking a small rebound in sales could be a model for Dubai as it struggles with a sluggish market and a confusing visa process.

Nicholas Maclean, the head of the regional office of CB Richard Ellis, a property consultancy, says a lack of clarity about the UAE’s residency visas was a “barrier to entry” in Dubai and was inhibiting buyers who were intent on taking advantage of the market’s significantly lower prices. Oman’s policy could be partly replicated in the Emirates, he said.

“It would not by itself turn around the market,” Mr Maclean said. “It’s one of those inhibitors that if taken away would lead to a higher level of sales interest.”

West of downtown Muscat, the Wave, a dense collection of white villas along the coast, launched last month its first sales drive since August 2008 and has sold 140 of 168 apartments.

Over the past 18 months, the developer, which is a joint venture between Majid al Futtaim and the Omani government, has changed plans for the project to include apartments that are more affordable than the luxury villas it had featured.

In the recent sales push, apartment prices ranged from 69,000 rials (Dh659,000) to 110,000 rials, while town houses were priced at about 110,000 rials to 160,000 rials.

“We went into the market with great trepidation, but it has been a success,” said Michael Lenarduzzi, the chief executive of The Wave. “The visa has been important for this … It’s a true, two-year visa that is renewable.”

About half of the buyers in the recent sales push were expatriates, many of whom had lived in the country for decades and needed a residence visa to be able to retire in the country.

The other half, Omani buyers, saw the project as a “long-term investment”, Mr Lenarduzzi said. The visas were making Oman a more attractive location for expatriates from Europe eager to live in a tax-free environment, he said.

The residency visas are granted to buyers in integrated tourism complexes, which are developments that include the tourism components that are important for the country’s economic diversification.

Muscat Hills, a collection of luxury homes and apartments around a golf course near the airport, has seen an increase in secondary market sales so far this year.

The project was near liquidation two years ago, but has been restructured and will begin delivering homes to buyers next week.

Chandra Lahiri, the group managing director of the project, said the Oman government was considering widening its visa policy even further to allow people on two-year residency visas to also work.

The government is being very, very supportive of these projects,” Mr Lahiri said. Still, Oman is dealing with the impacts of the dramatic slowdown that began in late 2008.

Many projects have been scrapped or put on hold indefinitely, while developers struggle with a lack of finance and an unwillingness of buyers to commit to purchasing homes that have yet to be built.

This has put a damper on the country’s plans to diversify the economy towards tourism.

Salam Yiti, a huge resort project by Sama Dubai and Omran, the Oman government-owned tourism developer, has stalled completely. Wael Lawati, the chief executive of Omran, said the two sides were in discussions about how to move the project forward. If those talks fail, Omran may have to find a new partner to finish the project, he said. Sama Dubai has been merged with other property developers at Dubai Holding, which is owned by Sheikh Mohammed bin Rashid, Vice President of the UAE and Ruler of Dubai, under Dubai Properties Group.

Oman’s largest tourism and property project, Blue City, has fallen apart because of a lack of sales. Located 45 minutes to the west of Muscat, the project was originally announced as a 20-year venture encompassing 32 square km with hotels, schools, apartment buildings, villas and recreation areas. The board of Al Sawadi Investment and Tourism Company, the parent company of the project, sent out a notice in February calling for investors to vote on the “dissolution of the company and filing subsidiaries”. The meeting was postponed to March 15, but the company has not disclosed any decision about the fate of the project.

Property insiders in Oman believe the project will be liquidated and bought up by another developer to be finished on a much smaller scale. Moody’s Investors Service, which rates the bonds issued by Blue City to fund construction, said that as of November last year, Blue City had sales of US$74.6 million (Dh273.9m), compared with a target of $860m.

Published in

http://www.thenational.ae/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100401/BUSINESS/704019863/1005

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