Helga Law Journal - 01.01.2021, Blaðsíða 56

Helga Law Journal Vol. 1, 2021
58
Dr. Snjólaug Árnadóttir
59
2 Unilateral Declarations Establishing Maritime
Limits
The act of establishing baselines is a unilateral act and as such, it only has binding
force insofar as it adheres to international law. Unilateral limits may be lawful when
first established but the submergence of coastal features can necessitate adjustment
of baselines and derived maritime limits to bring them in conformity with the
applicable law. Indeed, ‘maritime zones under coastal State jurisdiction have no
legal existence in the absence of a coastal front’34 and maritime limits are only
opposable to other States insofar as they coincide with the governing international
law.35
States can establish different types of baselines to mark the landward limit to
their maritime entitlements and different types of outer continental shelf limits.
These differences are relevant when evaluating the effects of changing coastal
geography, i.e. whether the limits can withstand subsequent changes to the
coastline. The following sections explore possibilities for stabilising (A) normal,
straight and archipelagic baselines and derived limits (Section 2.1); (B) straight
baselines at highly unstable coastlines (Section 2.2); and (C) permanently described
outer continental shelf limits (Section 2.3).
2.1 Normal, Straight and Archipelagic Baselines and Derived
Outer Limits
Normal baselines follow the low-water line along relevant coastlines.36 Such
baselines are applicable by default, unless otherwise specified.37 States can establish
straight baselines ‘where the coastline is deeply indented and cut into, or if there is
a fringe of islands along the coast in its immediate vicinity’.38 Straight closing lines
may also be used to close off bays and river mouths.39 Archipelagic States may use
archipelagic baselines where the requirements of UNCLOS article 47 are
satisfied.40 Straight and archipelagic baselines are drawn by joining appropriate
basepoints along the coastline. They do not follow the low-water line as closely as
normal baselines but should not depart from the general direction of the coast to

34 Geoffrey Marston, ‘The Stability of Land and Sea Boundary Delimitations in International Law’ in
Gerald H Blake (ed), Maritime Boundaries: World Boundaries (Routledge 1994) 144, 154.
35 Anglo-Norwegian Fisheries (United Kingdom/Norway) (Judgment) [1951] ICJ Rep 116, 132.
36 UNCLOS article 5.
37 Robert Beckman and Clive Schofield, ‘Moving Beyond Disputes Over Island Sovereignty: ICJ
Decision Sets Stage for Maritime Boundary Delimitation in the Singapore Strait’ (2009) 40 (10) Ocean
Development and International Law 1, 5.
38 UNCLOS article 7.
39 See UNCLOS arties 9 and 10.
40 UNCLOS article 47.
to freeze all maritime limits to prevent inequitable consequences of sea level rise.29
The proposals de lege ferenda would make it possible for States to fix the location of
baselines and/or all outer limits of maritime zones, notwithstanding subsequent
changes to relevant coastlines.30 However, these proposals cannot be reconciled
with existing international law and UNCLOS will not be easily changed or
superseded.31
This article will explore the options that are available to States de lege lata for
stabilising otherwise fluctuating maritime entitlements through unilateral claims,
acquiescence and bilateral arrangements. Chapter 2 considers rules governing the
establishment of inner and outer maritime limits through unilateral claims of States
and explains to what degree such limits can be stabilised under existing law.
Chapter 3 explores the legal requirements for acquiring tacit acceptance of
unilateral maritime limits along changing coastlines. Chapter 4 discusses the
stability generally afforded to agreed or judicially decided maritime boundaries and
highlights important exceptions. Finally, conclusions are presented in chapter 5.
Different scholars have addressed these issues,32 so have two committees of the
International Law Association (ILA), and most recently the International Law
Commission (ILC). What sets this article apart from earlier writings is the emphasis
on practical approaches for States to stabilise the limits to their maritime
entitlements and the special attention afforded to acquiescence and bilateral
boundaries, but the latter are often assumed to be immune from change.
Furthermore, this article engages with the very recent preliminary findings of the
ILC on the topic of sea level rise.33

29 ILC, ‘Sea-level rise in relation to international law: First issues paper’ (27 April–5 June and 6 July–7
August 2020) UN Doc A/CN.4/740, see para 104(e) and (f).
30 See, e.g., ILA Committee on International Law and Sea Level Rise ‘Minutes of the Lopud
Intersessional Meeting’ (ILA 2017) 14.
31 Robin R Churchill, ‘The Impact of State Practice on the Juridictional Framework Contained in the
LOS Convention’ in Alex G Oude Elferink (ed) Stability and Change in the Law of the Sea: The Role
of the Los Convention (Martinus Nijhoff 2005) 91, 97.
32 See, e.g., Jenny Grote Stoutenburg, ‘Implementing a New Regime of Stable Maritime Zones to
Ensure the (Economic) Survival of Small Island States Threatened by Sea-Level Rise’ (2016) 26 The
International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law 263; Sarra Sefrioui, ‘Adapting to Sea Level Rise: A
Law of the Sea Perspective’ in Gemma Andreone (ed) The Future of the Law of the Sea (Springer
2017) 3; Guifang (Julia) Xue, ‘Climate Change Challenges and the Law of the Sea Response’ in Oliver
C Ruppel, Christian Roschmann and Katharina Ruppel-Schlichting (eds) Climate Change: International
Law and Global Governance: Volume I: Legal Responses and Global Responsibility (Nomos 2013),
549.
33 The article is partly based on the author’s monograph, Climate Change and Maritime Boundaries: Legal
Consequences of Sea Level Rise (Cambridge University Press 2021).