The agreement divided the continental shelf of both 'doughnut holes'
in the Gulf of Mexico but the water column above the seabed in both
areas remains part of the high seas (Mike's 'everyone's land').
Under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS)
all coastal states are entitled to claim sovereign rights (that's
sovereign rights, not sovereignty...) over the resources of the sea
and seabed up to 200 nautical miles from their baselines. Where the
physical continental margin extends beyond 200 nautical miles, states
may also claim rights over the resources over the continental shelf
(but not the water column) under a complicated formula up to a
maximum of 350 nautical miles or 100 nautical miles beyond the 2,500
metre isobath. In this context, Mexico and the USA would appear to be
entitled to claim continental shelf rights and delimit a boundary
between them in the doughnut holes.
That said, there may be problems down the line associated with this
agreement. In order to acquire rights over continental shelf beyond
200 miles, a state must have its claim approved by the United Nations
Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf within ten years of
the entry into force of the Convention on the Law of the Sea for that
state. For Mexico, that means 2004. In theory, if Mexico does not
submit technical evidence to support its claim to the Commission in
the next three years, rights to its claimed share of the doughnut
hole seabed resources would fall to the International Seabed
Authority on behalf of the international community as a whole. In
practice, the deadline for submission of such claims is likely to be
extended, although no date has yet been set. The USA has still to
ratify UNCLOS, which raises a whole raft of other legal issues which
I won't bore you with now.
I hope that helps, although like most things legal, it has probably
raised as many questions as it has answered!
m a r t i n
--- In BoundaryPoint@egroups.com, "mick donner" <m@d...> wrote:
> interesting
>
> also was it my imagination or arent there really 2 donut holes out
> there & are these the same or different from the 2 omnisovereign
> holes of human heritage area previously indicated in the gulf of
> mexico also
>
> at least i sure hope that the usa & mexico are not simply
> appropriating & divvying up our most local units of everyones
> land
>
> that would leave our golf course a hole or 2 short
> & set an ominous precedent for the rest
>
> lets hope i am mistaken
>
> can anyone say
>
> m