Helga Law Journal - 01.01.2021, Page 52

Dr. Snjólaug Árnadóttir
55
Helga Law Journal Vol. 1, 2021
54
1 Introduction
Coastal States are entitled to different maritime zones under the United Nations
Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS)1 and they have various rights and
obligations within each zone. For example, States enjoy sovereign rights to explore
and exploit all natural resources within the exclusive economic zone so it generally
serves their interests to extend such jurisdiction to rich fishing grounds and mineral
deposits. It is in this quest for expansive sovereign jurisdiction that States have
long sought to extend their maritime claims seaward. This was evident in the 1951
Anglo-Norwegian Fisheries case when Norway defended its right to draw straight
baselines along the furthest extent of the coast2 and in the Cod Wars from 1948-
1976 when Iceland fought to expand its fisheries jurisdiction.3 International law
governing the breadth of maritime zones and the right to establish straight
baselines was clarified in 1982, through the adoption of UNCLOS. However, the
enforceability of these limits is now threatened by new challenges, not anticipated
by UNCLOS; namely, sea level rise and coastal erosion.
The breadth of each maritime zone is measured from baselines (with the
exception of the continental shelf where the natural prolongation of submerged
territory extends beyond 200 nautical miles (nm)).4 States establish baselines and
outer maritime limits through unilateral acts. If neighbouring States have
overlapping claims, bilateral boundaries must be delimited through agreements or
other peaceful means.5 These limits and boundaries are established on the basis of
coastal geography6 because maritime entitlements are generated by naturally
formed land territory.7 More specifically, it is the coastal front that establishes the
juridical link between sovereign territory and maritime entitlements.8
Coastal features must satisfy certain conditions to generate, and continuously
support, claims to maritime zones. They only generate entitlements to exclusive
economic zones or continental shelves if they qualify as islands, i.e. are above water

1 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (adopted 10 December 1982, entered into force
16 November 1994) 1833 UNTS 3.
2 Anglo-Norwegian Fisheries (United Kingdom/Norway) (Judgment) [1951] ICJ Rep 116.
3 See Guðni Th. Jóhannesson, Þorskastríðin þrjú (Hafréttarstofnun Íslands 2006); Fisheries Jurisdiction
(United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland v Iceland) (Merits) [1974] ICJ Rep 3.
4 UNCLOS article 76.
5 See UNCLOS articles 15, 74(1), 83(1) and UNCLOS part XV.
6 See e.g. Land and Maritime Boundary between Cameroon and Nigeria (Cameroon v Nigeria:
Equatorial Guinea intervening) (Judgment) [2002] ICJ Rep 303, para 295; Delimitation of the
Continental Shelf between the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and the French
Republic (United Kingdom/France) (Arbitral Award) [1977] RIAA volume XVIII, 3, para 84; North
Sea Continental Shelf (Federal Republic of Germany/Netherlands) (Federal Republic of
Germany/Denmark) (Judgment) [1969] ICJ Rep 3, para 96.
7 See UNCLOS articles 13(1), 60(80) and 121(1); South China Sea (Philippines v China) (Merits) (2016) 170
ILR 1, para 508.
8 Continental Shelf (Libyan Arab Jamahiriya/Malta) (Judgment) [1985] ICJ Rep 13, 41.
potentially achieve acquiescence for all maritime limits. Furthermore, States can
tacitly accept maritime limits through boundary agreements and such agreements
generally remain enforceable, regardless of subsequent change to relevant coastal
geography. The same is true of bilateral boundaries established through judicial
decisions.
This article discusses the options available to States for stabilising maritime
limits under existing law. The aim is to contribute to the ongoing debate
concerning legal reform for maritime limits.