Subject: Re: Mexico and USA Agree to Divide Unclaimed Area in Gulf of Mexico
Date: Dec 06, 2001 @ 09:31
Author: acroorca2002 ("acroorca2002" <orc@...>)
Prev Post in Topic Next [All Posts]
Prev Post in Time Next
--- In BoundaryPoint@y..., "Martin Pratt" <m.a.pratt@d...> wrote:
> 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@e..., "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