Helga Law Journal - 01.01.2021, Side 67

Helga Law Journal - 01.01.2021, Side 67
Helga Law Journal Vol. 1, 2021 68 Dr. Snjólaug Árnadóttir 69 declaration of a State […] the other State or States concerned may incur obligations in relation to such a unilateral declaration to the extent that they clearly accepted such a declaration’. States generally have a legal interest in making sure that maritime limits of other States satisfy the requirements of UNCLOS. Even if they have no overlapping claims to maritime zones, they may have legitimate interests relating to claims encroaching upon the high seas or the international seabed area.97 On the other hand, it is in the interest of coastal States to push their maritime limits seaward and some States have gone to great lengths to further their maritime entitlements. For example, ‘almost all of the States of the Asia-Pacific region have adopted straight baseline systems that are inconsistent with international law’ and they maintain these claims despite vigorous opposition.98 The ILA Baselines Committee identified 82 protests or objections to straight baselines. These challenges have been submitted by 21 States and the EU and lodged against 39 States, covering almost 50% of all straight baseline claims.99 The United States has actively objected to the unlawful use of baselines worldwide and other States have made similar efforts.100 These objections can prevent acquiescence because, if successfully challenged, unlawful maritime limits become invalid vis-à-vis other States.101 If States fail to challenge excessive maritime limits, they may later be estopped from challenging such limits. As explained by Churchill and Lowe: Where a baseline is clearly contrary to international law, it will not be valid, certainly in respect of States which have objected to it, though a State which has accepted the baseline (for example in a boundary treaty) might be stopped from later denying its validity. In border-line cases— for example, where there is doubt as to whether a State’s straight baseline system conforms to all the criteria laid down in customary and conventional law—the attitude of other States in acquiescing in or objecting to the baseline is likely to prove crucial in determining its validity.102 The submission of charts, or lists of geographic coordinates, to the UNSG is crucial for the formation of acquiescence and estoppel because it provides States with the information necessary to raise their objections. The ICJ has indicated that challenges should generally be raised shortly after submission of data to the 97 See, e.g., Chagos Marine Protected Area (Mauritius v United Kingdom) (2015) XXXI RIAA 359, para 153; Anglo-Norwegian Fisheries (n 35) 125. 98 Ashley Roach and Robert W Smith (n 57) 66. 99 ILA Baselines Committee, ‘Johannesburg Conference’ (ILA 2016) 17, para 65. 100 Ashley Roach and Robert W Smith (n 57) 48. 101 See, e.g., South China Sea (n 7) paras 278 and 1203 B.(2). 102 Robin R Churchill and Alan V Lowe, The Law of the Sea, 2nd revised edition (Manchester University Press 1988) 46-47. The ILC has published ‘Guiding Principles applicable to unilateral declarations of States capable of creating legal obligations’.87 The principles deal with declarations ‘formulated by States in exercise of their freedom to act on the international plane’ and not on ‘unilateral acts […] formulated in the framework and on the basis of an express authorization under international law’.88 Thus, the principles are not directly applicable to maritime limits established in accordance with UNCLOS but the ILC’s commentary and preparatory work is of relevance for this discussion, particularly to limits that become inconsistent with the law due to environmental changes. According to Guiding Principle 3, the legal effects of unilateral declarations depend inter alia on the reactions they invoke.89 When preparing this Guiding Principle, the ILC referenced the 1945 Truman proclamation,90 whereby the United States established unilateral limits to the continental shelf. This occurred before the conclusion of a framework treaty (UNCLOS and the Convention on the Continental Shelf).91 Yet, the declaration soon became opposable because of the positive reactions it received from other States.92 As noted by the ICJ, the Truman proclamation is a ‘particular source that has secured a general following’.93 The ILC also explained how objections could prevent tacit acceptance of maritime limits and referenced the following example. Turkmenistan established baselines and territorial sea limits in 1993 and Russia protested these limits in January 1994 by means of a diplomatic note, stating that this unilateral action would not be recognised by Russia.94 According to the ILC, these protests were ‘necessary to prevent a situation whereby silence on the part of the Russian Federation could be invoked against it in the future as a tacit acceptance of or acquiescence in the claims of Turkmenistan’.95 Indeed, failure to object to potentially unlawful maritime limits can amount to acquiescence or tacit acceptance.96 Such failure can give unilateral maritime claims binding force, whereas a successful challenge would make them unenforceable. Guiding Principle 9 confirms that while ‘[n]o obligation may result for other States from the unilateral 87 ILC, ‘Report of the Commission to the General Assembly on the work of its fifty-eighth session’ (1 May-9 June and 3 July-11 August 2006) UN Doc A/CN.4/SER.A/2006/Add.1 (Part 2), para 176. 88 Ibid para 174. 89 Ibid para 176. 90 Harry S Truman, ‘150 - Proclamation 2667 - Policy of the United States with Respect to the Natural Resources of the Subsoil and Sea Bed of the Continental Shelf’ September 28, 1945. 91 Convention on the Continental Shelf (adopted 29 April 1958, entered into force 10 June 1964) 499 UNTS 311. 92 ILC, ‘Eighth report on unilateral acts of States, by Mr. Víctor Rodríguez Cedeño, Special Rapporteur’ (26 May 2005) UN Doc A/CN.4/557, paras 131-133. 93 North Sea Continental Shelf (n 6) para 100. 94 UN Doc A/CN.4/557 (n 92) paras 85-88. 95 Ibid para 94. 96 Julia Lisztwan, ‘Stability of maritime boundary agreements’ (2012) 37 Yale Journal of International Law 153, 165.
Side 1
Side 2
Side 3
Side 4
Side 5
Side 6
Side 7
Side 8
Side 9
Side 10
Side 11
Side 12
Side 13
Side 14
Side 15
Side 16
Side 17
Side 18
Side 19
Side 20
Side 21
Side 22
Side 23
Side 24
Side 25
Side 26
Side 27
Side 28
Side 29
Side 30
Side 31
Side 32
Side 33
Side 34
Side 35
Side 36
Side 37
Side 38
Side 39
Side 40
Side 41
Side 42
Side 43
Side 44
Side 45
Side 46
Side 47
Side 48
Side 49
Side 50
Side 51
Side 52
Side 53
Side 54
Side 55
Side 56
Side 57
Side 58
Side 59
Side 60
Side 61
Side 62
Side 63
Side 64
Side 65
Side 66
Side 67
Side 68
Side 69
Side 70
Side 71
Side 72
Side 73
Side 74
Side 75
Side 76
Side 77
Side 78
Side 79
Side 80
Side 81
Side 82
Side 83
Side 84
Side 85
Side 86
Side 87
Side 88
Side 89
Side 90
Side 91
Side 92
Side 93
Side 94
Side 95
Side 96
Side 97
Side 98
Side 99
Side 100
Side 101
Side 102
Side 103
Side 104
Side 105
Side 106
Side 107
Side 108
Side 109
Side 110
Side 111
Side 112
Side 113
Side 114
Side 115
Side 116
Side 117
Side 118
Side 119
Side 120
Side 121
Side 122
Side 123
Side 124
Side 125
Side 126
Side 127
Side 128
Side 129
Side 130
Side 131
Side 132
Side 133
Side 134
Side 135
Side 136
Side 137
Side 138
Side 139
Side 140
Side 141
Side 142
Side 143
Side 144
Side 145
Side 146
Side 147
Side 148
Side 149
Side 150
Side 151
Side 152
Side 153
Side 154
Side 155
Side 156
Side 157
Side 158
Side 159
Side 160
Side 161
Side 162
Side 163
Side 164
Side 165
Side 166
Side 167
Side 168
Side 169
Side 170
Side 171
Side 172
Side 173
Side 174
Side 175
Side 176
Side 177
Side 178
Side 179
Side 180
Side 181
Side 182
Side 183
Side 184
Side 185
Side 186
Side 187
Side 188
Side 189
Side 190
Side 191
Side 192
Side 193
Side 194
Side 195
Side 196
Side 197
Side 198
Side 199
Side 200
Side 201
Side 202
Side 203
Side 204
Side 205
Side 206
Side 207
Side 208
Side 209
Side 210
Side 211
Side 212
Side 213
Side 214
Side 215
Side 216
Side 217
Side 218
Side 219
Side 220
Side 221
Side 222
Side 223
Side 224

x

Helga Law Journal

Direkte link

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.