Subject: Re: [BoundaryPoint] maritime sovereignty and jurisdiction
Date: Mar 13, 2001 @ 17:47
Author: michael donner (michael donner <m@...>)
Prev    Post in Topic    Next [All Posts]
Prev    Post in Time    Next


would st pierre & miquelon meet the strict definition you mention below

m

i mean while we are out here between nova scotia & newfoundland with doug

>
>There seems to be some confusion among members of the group
>concerning the nature and extent of state sovereignty and
>jurisdiction offshore. I hope the following comments will help to
>clarify the situation.
>
>Essentially, issues of maritime sovereignty and jurisdiction are
>governed by the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea
>(UNCLOS) which entered into force in November 1994. To date, 134
>states plus the European Union have ratified or acceded to UNCLOS
>(see <http://www.un.org/Depts/los/los94st.htm>
>http://www.un.org/Depts/los/los94st.htm for a full list).
>Technically, states which have not ratified the convention are not
>bound by its provisions, but in reality it is now very difficult to
>defend contrary practice, as much of the convention is now recognised
>as customary international law.
>
>Coastal states are entitled to claim sovereignty over a belt of
>territorial sea up to twelve nautical miles (1 nautical mile = 1,852
>metres) from their baselines. Normally the baseline is the low-water
>line along the coast, although where the coastline is deeply indented
>or fringed with islands, the state may construct a system of straight
>baselines from the which the territorial sea and other maritime zones
>are measured. Within the territorial sea state sovereignty is the
>same as that over its land territory, with one important exception:
>the state must allow the innocent passage of vessels from other
>states.
>
>The waters landward of straight baselines and closing lines across
>the mouths of rivers and bays are defined as internal waters. No
>right of innocent passage exists in internal waters, so sovereignty
>is the same as that over land territory.
>
>Beyond the territorial sea, coastal states have sovereign rights for
>the purpose of exploring and exploiting the natural resources of the
>continental shelf. Note the term "sovereign rights", which is quite
>different from sovereignty. All coastal states have rights over the
>resources of the continental shelf up to 200 nm from their baselines,
>regardless of the geomorphology of the seabed. Where the continental
>margin extends beyond 200 nm, states are entitled to claim rights
>over the resources of the seabed up to either 350 nm or a line 100 nm
>beyond the 2,500 m isobath; however, such claims are subject to
>approval by the United Nations Commission on the Limits of the
>Continental Shelf.
>
>Coastal states are also entitled to claim an Exclusive Economic Zone
>(EEZ) up to 200 nm from their baselines, in which they exercise
>sovereign rights over the natural resources of both the seabed and
>the water column above it. Within the EEZ the coastal state may
>exercise jurisdiction over the establishment of artificial islands
>and installations, marine scientific research, and the protection and
>preservation of the marine environment - but this is a long way short
>of full sovereignty.
>
>To my mind, therefore, Bioko and the continental Equatorial Guinea
>are not part of one continuous zone of sovereignty. Such a situation
>would only occur if they were no more than 24 nm apart, or if there
>was a chain of islands between them in which each island was less
>than 24 nm from its neighbours. In such instances there would be an
>unbroken zone of territorial sea between the two land masses, and you
>could certainly argue that this is all part of the same sovereign
>space - although, as noted above, sovereignty over the territorial
>sea is not identical to that over land territory or internal waters.
>
>If you accept the above argument, the only islands which would meet
>Brendan's strict definition of an enclave would be those whose
>territorial sea is totally surrounded by the territorial sea of
>another state - and, as yet, I have been unable to think of any....
>
>There are many more issues I might have touched on but I hope the
>above covers the essentials. If you want to find out more about
>maritime jurisdiction, the two most accessible primers I have come
>across are J.R.V. Prescott's "The Maritime Political Boundaries of
>the World" (Methuen, 1985) and E.D. Brown's "The International Law of
>the Sea" (Dartmouth, 1994). The text of UNCLOS can be found on the
>web at <http://www.un.org/Depts/los/unclos/closindx.htm>
>http://www.un.org/Depts/los/unclos/closindx.htm and there are
>numerous links to law of the sea-related sites from IBRU's web links
>page at <http://www-ibru.dur.ac.uk/links.html.>
>http://www-ibru.dur.ac.uk/links.html.
>
>Regards,
>
>m a r t i n
>
>==================================
>Martin Pratt
>Research Officer
>International Boundaries Research Unit
>Mountjoy Research Centre, Suite 3P
>University of Durham
>Durham DH1 3UR
>United Kingdom
>
>+44 (0)191 374 7704 (direct line)
>+44 (0)191 374 7702 (fax)
>m.a.pratt@... (email)
><http://www-ibru.dur.ac.uk> http://www-ibru.dur.ac.uk (World Wide Web)
>==================================
>
> Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
><"http://rd.yahoo.com/M=163100.1357384.2947150.2/D=egroupmail/S=1700126166:N/A=5
>24804/*http://www.classmates.com/index.tf?s=2629" target="_top">Cick here
>for Classmates.com Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the
><http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> Yahoo! Terms of Service.