Under the law of the sea, any naturally formed area of land which is
surrounded by water and is above water at high tide is considered an
island, and is entitled to a 12 nautical mile (nm) territorial sea. In
this context even a tiny rock is worth up to 452 square nm of sovereign
ocean space, and I would be most surprised if there are any which have
not been claimed by at least one state.
Most islands are also entitled to continental shelf and a 200 nm EEZ.
The exception to this rule is "rocks which cannot sustain human
habitation or economic life of their own", which are limited to a
territorial sea. As noted in previous postings, there is enough
ambiguity in that phrase to keep a small army of international lawyers
in business for the rest of their lives. To date, only the UK has
formally conceded that one of its insular features is a legal rock
rather than a full-blown island, namely Rockall. Until the International
Court of Justice (ICJ) or an arbitration tribunal plucks up the courage
to address the issue, I suspect that states will continue to claim EEZs
around all their insular features, no matter how small, remote or barren
they may be. The arbitration tribunal which was asked to settle the
dispute between Eritrea and Yemen concerning sovereignty over islands in
the southern Red Sea had an opportunity to clarify the 'island v rock'
debate somewhat, but sadly it chose to sidestep the question.
Low-tide elevations do not generate any maritime zones themselves,
although they can be used as territorial sea basepoints if they lie
within 12 nm of the coast, and they can be incorporated into straight
baseline systems if they are surmounted by a lighthouse or similar
installation. In the recent Qatar v Bahrain case at the ICJ, the Court
noted that international law has been silent on whether low-tide
elevations are actually 'territory' over which states may claim
sovereignty. So low-tide elevations more than 12 nm from the nearest
piece of land territory could potentially be considered part of
'everyone's land'.
m a r t i n
> Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2001 23:55:40 -0000
> From: "Grant Hutchison" <granthutchison@...>
> Subject: Re: virgin country
>> that is if any guano rocks were available or habitable
>> & we have not heard of or from a one yet
> I don't think we can claim guano rocks for Everyone's Land. The UN
> excludes rocks that cannot sustain habitation *or economic life of
> their own* from use in a maritime claim (though I guess a country
> could still claim the rock itself). Prescott says that a rock that
> was regularly used to collect guano would qualify as having economic
> activity sufficient for a maritime claim. Although lawyers could
> argue profitably forever about that word "regularly", it looks like a
> guano rock might potentially carve a 200nm circle *out of* Everyone's
> Land.
> I presume this is the basis for Brazil's maritime claim around the
> Peter and Paul Rocks, which are about as "habitable" as Rockall.