Subject: Artif. islands, landfills, and their effect on 12 nm
Date: Jun 15, 2001 @ 07:18
Author: Peter Smaardijk ("Peter Smaardijk" <smaardijk@...>)
Prev    Post in Topic    Next [All Posts]
Prev    Post in Time    Next


Acc. to UNCLOS, art. 11: For the purpose of delimiting the
territorial sea, the outermost permanent harbour works which form an
integral part of the harbour system are regarded as forming part of
the coast. Off-shore installations and artificial islands shall not
be considered as permanent harbour works.

But is the Maasvlakte "the outermost permanent harbour works"? I can
tell you that it is more than a part of the harbour, having also non-
harbour related industry on it. A couple of years ago there was a
plan to reclaim an area north of the Hook of Holland in order to
build houses on it. That plan has been abolished now as far as I
know. But what would it have been? No harbour works. No artificial
island, either (not even an island). Would it have affected the Dutch
12 nm zone?

By the way, on artificial islands: they don't have terr. waters of
themselves, acc. to UNCLOS, art. 60-8: Artificial islands,
installations and structures do not possess the status of islands.
They have no territorial sea of their own, and their presence does
not affect the delimitation of the territorial sea, the exclusive
economic zone or the continental shelf.

I suppose this was put in to prevent drilling platforms etc. to be at
the basis of terr. and other zones. But what about an art. island in
the sea, on which an airport is built (another wild plan in this
country)? When there were discussions about this plan here, it was
said that some international agreement would have to be made if the
airport was outside the 12 nm. Fair enough, but would it affect that
same 12 nm boundary if the island was inside this (initial, i.e.
based on the coastline) boundary?

Peter S.

--- In BoundaryPoint@y..., "Peter Smaardijk" <smaardijk@y...> wrote:
> Most the polders in the Netherlands were made before all these
legal
> nautical zones were implemented, or just didn't effect them (the
ones
> in the Zuiderzee, which, together with the nl part of the Wadden
Sea,
> was internal water, before it was closed by the Afsluitdijk). There
> are some places that are more recent _and_ could have an effect on
> the zones: the piers at IJmuiden, and those at the Hook of Holland,
> combined with the Rotterdam harbour extension plan called the
> Maasvlakte.
>
> This is an interesting question. The normal reaction would be that
> the 12 nm limit adapts to the new coastline. But then the
Netherlands
> would unilaterally annex parts that are outside of it. Luckily it
has
> no effect on the EEZ. But somewhere else in the world it could well
> have, after all we don't have the monopoly on polders and
landfills.
> Are countries, by "unilaterally" extending their territory, allowed
> to take pieces of "everyones land" as well? Any opinions on this
from
> anyone?