Helga Law Journal

Ukioqatigiit
Ataaseq assigiiaat ilaat

Helga Law Journal - 01.01.2021, Qupperneq 64

Helga Law Journal - 01.01.2021, Qupperneq 64
Helga Law Journal Vol. 1, 2021 66 Dr. Snjólaug Árnadóttir 67 been given due publicity with submission of data to the UNSG, and those that have not.79 They suggest that UNCLOS might be interpreted in such a way as to allow all States to freeze their maritime limits by depositing information on the limits with the UNSG and not updating such notifications to reflect receding coastlines.80 This would entail a departure from the current interpretation of UNCLOS, which might be possible under article 31(3) of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, but only if supported by consistent State practice.81 Several States have informed the ILC of relevant practice in this regard and that demonstrates a broad understanding of the ambulatory nature of maritime limits82 but also, efforts by particularly affected States (the Pacific small island developing States) to change the interpretation.83 The ILC’s preliminary findings on the topic of ambulatory maritime limits is that it would be feasible to stabilise maritime entitlements.84 It might threaten legal stability and undermine UNCLOS if States were encouraged to reinterpret the convention and a consensus on the issue seems like a distant possibility. Another option would be to encourage tacit acceptance of outdated maritime limits. This might achieve the same objective, without interfering directly with the interpretation of UNCLOS. Also, it might provide a useful degree of flexibility. After all, Pacific island States seem more interested in fixing all maritime limits than the United Kingdom and the United States, for example, and principles of equity would support the notion that vulnerable States enjoy flexibility. However, it would be difficult to reconcile regional differences in the interpretation or application of UNCLOS. Maritime limits can be tacitly accepted in a legally binding manner. This can make them enforceable against other States, even if they do not conform to the maritime entitlements afforded to States under UNCLOS, or consonant customary international law. This process is called acquiescence and it demonstrates ‘tacit recognition manifested by unilateral conduct which the other party may interpret as consent’.85 Although consent-based, the relationship established through acquiescence ‘between the author State and the addressee or addressees […] is distinct from a treaty relationship’.86 79 UN Doc A/CN.4/740 (n 29) para 143. 80 Ibid, para 104(e) and (f). 81 Note that the ‘possibility of amending or modifying a treaty by subsequent practice of the parties has not been generally recognized’: GAOR, ‘Report of the International Law Commission, Sixty-eighth session’ (2 May-10 June and 4 July-12 August 2016) UN Doc A/71/10, 118, 122. 82 See UN Doc A/CN.4/740 (n 29) paras 87-88. 83 Ibid paras 84-86. 84 Ibid para 190. 85 Delimitation of the Maritime Boundary in the Gulf of Maine Area (Canada/United States of America) (Judgment) [1984] ICJ Rep 246, para 130. 86 ILC, ‘Ninth report on unilateral acts of States’ (6 April 2006) UN Doc A/CN.4/569 and Add.1, para 128. contemporaneous evidence, and recommend final and binding continental shelf limits excluding entitlements previously generated by the submerged territory. It should also be noted that certain States do not have sufficient resources to collect the necessary data and make submissions to the CLCS in order to establish permanent continental shelf limits.76 Furthermore, it seems that non-Parties may be precluded from submitting their data to the CLCS and establishing final and binding limits on that basis. This is not explicitly dealt with in UNCLOS but in Judge Heiðar’s opinion non-Parties have no such right under UNCLOS or customary international law.77 One of the arguments supporting this conclusion is that UNCLOS article 82, concerning revenue sharing and contributions to the International Seabed Authority, only applies to States Parties. If States Parties alone carry these obligations (relating to the outer continental shelf beyond 200 nm), it seems prudent that they would be the only ones benefitting from final and binding continental shelf limits beyond 200 nm. The International Court of Justice (ICJ) has explained that States Parties to UNCLOS are obligated to submit relevant data to the CLCS ‘whereas the making of a recommendation, following examination of that information, is a prerogative of the CLCS’.78 Non-member States certainly have no obligation to make submissions to the CLCS but this does not preclude the possibility of them submitting their data to the CLCS. However, they would always be dependent on the CLCS’s decision to make a recommendation and probably be placed at the end of a long line. Consequently, not all States will be able to acquire final and binding outer continental shelf limits but to increase their chances, States are advised to ratify UNCLOS and submit relevant data to the CLCS in a timely fashion. 3 Tacitly Accepted Unilateral Maritime Limits As has been noted above, unilateral limits are generally not opposable to other States unless and insofar as they delineate entitlements afforded to coastal States under the applicable international law. This is why unilateral limits must be adjusted to changing coastlines to continuously meet relevant requirements. Yet, unilaterally established maritime limits do not automatically cease to exist if they are inconsistent with international law. On the contrary, States can continuously rely on excessive maritime limits if they go unchallenged. The co-chairs of the ILC’s Study Group on sea level rise have suggested that States might be able to continuously rely on duly published maritime limits, notwithstanding subsequent changes to relevant coasts. They suggest, in their preliminary findings, that this might be achieved through revised interpretation of UNCLOS. The co-chairs clearly differentiate between maritime limits that have 76 Ibid 139. 77 Tómas H Heiðar (n 73) 31. 78 Questions of the Delimitation of the Continental Shelf Between Nicaragua and Colombia Beyond 200 Nautical Miles from the Nicaraguan Coast (n 68) para 107.
Qupperneq 1
Qupperneq 2
Qupperneq 3
Qupperneq 4
Qupperneq 5
Qupperneq 6
Qupperneq 7
Qupperneq 8
Qupperneq 9
Qupperneq 10
Qupperneq 11
Qupperneq 12
Qupperneq 13
Qupperneq 14
Qupperneq 15
Qupperneq 16
Qupperneq 17
Qupperneq 18
Qupperneq 19
Qupperneq 20
Qupperneq 21
Qupperneq 22
Qupperneq 23
Qupperneq 24
Qupperneq 25
Qupperneq 26
Qupperneq 27
Qupperneq 28
Qupperneq 29
Qupperneq 30
Qupperneq 31
Qupperneq 32
Qupperneq 33
Qupperneq 34
Qupperneq 35
Qupperneq 36
Qupperneq 37
Qupperneq 38
Qupperneq 39
Qupperneq 40
Qupperneq 41
Qupperneq 42
Qupperneq 43
Qupperneq 44
Qupperneq 45
Qupperneq 46
Qupperneq 47
Qupperneq 48
Qupperneq 49
Qupperneq 50
Qupperneq 51
Qupperneq 52
Qupperneq 53
Qupperneq 54
Qupperneq 55
Qupperneq 56
Qupperneq 57
Qupperneq 58
Qupperneq 59
Qupperneq 60
Qupperneq 61
Qupperneq 62
Qupperneq 63
Qupperneq 64
Qupperneq 65
Qupperneq 66
Qupperneq 67
Qupperneq 68
Qupperneq 69
Qupperneq 70
Qupperneq 71
Qupperneq 72
Qupperneq 73
Qupperneq 74
Qupperneq 75
Qupperneq 76
Qupperneq 77
Qupperneq 78
Qupperneq 79
Qupperneq 80
Qupperneq 81
Qupperneq 82
Qupperneq 83
Qupperneq 84
Qupperneq 85
Qupperneq 86
Qupperneq 87
Qupperneq 88
Qupperneq 89
Qupperneq 90
Qupperneq 91
Qupperneq 92
Qupperneq 93
Qupperneq 94
Qupperneq 95
Qupperneq 96
Qupperneq 97
Qupperneq 98
Qupperneq 99
Qupperneq 100
Qupperneq 101
Qupperneq 102
Qupperneq 103
Qupperneq 104
Qupperneq 105
Qupperneq 106
Qupperneq 107
Qupperneq 108
Qupperneq 109
Qupperneq 110
Qupperneq 111
Qupperneq 112
Qupperneq 113
Qupperneq 114
Qupperneq 115
Qupperneq 116
Qupperneq 117
Qupperneq 118
Qupperneq 119
Qupperneq 120
Qupperneq 121
Qupperneq 122
Qupperneq 123
Qupperneq 124
Qupperneq 125
Qupperneq 126
Qupperneq 127
Qupperneq 128
Qupperneq 129
Qupperneq 130
Qupperneq 131
Qupperneq 132
Qupperneq 133
Qupperneq 134
Qupperneq 135
Qupperneq 136
Qupperneq 137
Qupperneq 138
Qupperneq 139
Qupperneq 140
Qupperneq 141
Qupperneq 142
Qupperneq 143
Qupperneq 144
Qupperneq 145
Qupperneq 146
Qupperneq 147
Qupperneq 148
Qupperneq 149
Qupperneq 150
Qupperneq 151
Qupperneq 152
Qupperneq 153
Qupperneq 154
Qupperneq 155
Qupperneq 156
Qupperneq 157
Qupperneq 158
Qupperneq 159
Qupperneq 160
Qupperneq 161
Qupperneq 162
Qupperneq 163
Qupperneq 164
Qupperneq 165
Qupperneq 166
Qupperneq 167
Qupperneq 168
Qupperneq 169
Qupperneq 170
Qupperneq 171
Qupperneq 172
Qupperneq 173
Qupperneq 174
Qupperneq 175
Qupperneq 176
Qupperneq 177
Qupperneq 178
Qupperneq 179
Qupperneq 180
Qupperneq 181
Qupperneq 182
Qupperneq 183
Qupperneq 184
Qupperneq 185
Qupperneq 186
Qupperneq 187
Qupperneq 188
Qupperneq 189
Qupperneq 190
Qupperneq 191
Qupperneq 192
Qupperneq 193
Qupperneq 194
Qupperneq 195
Qupperneq 196
Qupperneq 197
Qupperneq 198
Qupperneq 199
Qupperneq 200
Qupperneq 201
Qupperneq 202
Qupperneq 203
Qupperneq 204
Qupperneq 205
Qupperneq 206
Qupperneq 207
Qupperneq 208
Qupperneq 209
Qupperneq 210
Qupperneq 211
Qupperneq 212
Qupperneq 213
Qupperneq 214
Qupperneq 215
Qupperneq 216
Qupperneq 217
Qupperneq 218
Qupperneq 219
Qupperneq 220
Qupperneq 221
Qupperneq 222
Qupperneq 223
Qupperneq 224

x

Helga Law Journal

Direct Links

Hvis du vil linke til denne avis/magasin, skal du bruge disse links:

Link til denne avis/magasin: Helga Law Journal
https://timarit.is/publication/1677

Link til dette eksemplar:

Link til denne side:

Link til denne artikel:

Venligst ikke link direkte til billeder eller PDfs på Timarit.is, da sådanne webadresser kan ændres uden advarsel. Brug venligst de angivne webadresser for at linke til sitet.