Helga Law Journal - 01.01.2021, Page 67

Helga Law Journal - 01.01.2021, Page 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.
Page 1
Page 2
Page 3
Page 4
Page 5
Page 6
Page 7
Page 8
Page 9
Page 10
Page 11
Page 12
Page 13
Page 14
Page 15
Page 16
Page 17
Page 18
Page 19
Page 20
Page 21
Page 22
Page 23
Page 24
Page 25
Page 26
Page 27
Page 28
Page 29
Page 30
Page 31
Page 32
Page 33
Page 34
Page 35
Page 36
Page 37
Page 38
Page 39
Page 40
Page 41
Page 42
Page 43
Page 44
Page 45
Page 46
Page 47
Page 48
Page 49
Page 50
Page 51
Page 52
Page 53
Page 54
Page 55
Page 56
Page 57
Page 58
Page 59
Page 60
Page 61
Page 62
Page 63
Page 64
Page 65
Page 66
Page 67
Page 68
Page 69
Page 70
Page 71
Page 72
Page 73
Page 74
Page 75
Page 76
Page 77
Page 78
Page 79
Page 80
Page 81
Page 82
Page 83
Page 84
Page 85
Page 86
Page 87
Page 88
Page 89
Page 90
Page 91
Page 92
Page 93
Page 94
Page 95
Page 96
Page 97
Page 98
Page 99
Page 100
Page 101
Page 102
Page 103
Page 104
Page 105
Page 106
Page 107
Page 108
Page 109
Page 110
Page 111
Page 112
Page 113
Page 114
Page 115
Page 116
Page 117
Page 118
Page 119
Page 120
Page 121
Page 122
Page 123
Page 124
Page 125
Page 126
Page 127
Page 128
Page 129
Page 130
Page 131
Page 132
Page 133
Page 134
Page 135
Page 136
Page 137
Page 138
Page 139
Page 140
Page 141
Page 142
Page 143
Page 144
Page 145
Page 146
Page 147
Page 148
Page 149
Page 150
Page 151
Page 152
Page 153
Page 154
Page 155
Page 156
Page 157
Page 158
Page 159
Page 160
Page 161
Page 162
Page 163
Page 164
Page 165
Page 166
Page 167
Page 168
Page 169
Page 170
Page 171
Page 172
Page 173
Page 174
Page 175
Page 176
Page 177
Page 178
Page 179
Page 180
Page 181
Page 182
Page 183
Page 184
Page 185
Page 186
Page 187
Page 188
Page 189
Page 190
Page 191
Page 192
Page 193
Page 194
Page 195
Page 196
Page 197
Page 198
Page 199
Page 200
Page 201
Page 202
Page 203
Page 204
Page 205
Page 206
Page 207
Page 208
Page 209
Page 210
Page 211
Page 212
Page 213
Page 214
Page 215
Page 216
Page 217
Page 218
Page 219
Page 220
Page 221
Page 222
Page 223
Page 224

x

Helga Law Journal

Direct Links

If you want to link to this newspaper/magazine, please use these links:

Link to this newspaper/magazine: Helga Law Journal
https://timarit.is/publication/1677

Link to this issue:

Link to this page:

Link to this article:

Please do not link directly to images or PDFs on Timarit.is as such URLs may change without warning. Please use the URLs provided above for linking to the website.