Search

The Annex VII Tribunal in the South China Sea Arbitration placed a high threshold on States seeking to claim an exclusive economic zone (EEZ) around small features. The implications of such an interpretation are potentially significant for the maritime jurisdiction of a number of States, particularly in the Pacific. This article considers the implications of the decision of the Tribunal, and applies it to Kiribati as a case study. It also considers possible ways States may minimize the risk associated with the Tribunal’s interpretation.

The Pacific Island States and Territories are traditionally described as ‘small island’ nations. However, they are also ‘large ocean’ nations with jurisdiction over substantial maritime spaces stretching to at least 200 nautical miles. The article addresses issues related to baselines along the coast on which these broad maritime claims depend. The article then examines geodynamic considerations coupled with sea and land level projections in the Pacific leading to an assessment of the vulnerability or resilience of atolls in particular. The article then discusses potential implications for the coastlines and baselines of the Pacific Island States and Territories, the limits of their maritime entitlements and both delimited and undelimited maritime boundaries. Potential response options, prospects, and concluding thoughts are then offered.

This article will consider Australia's efforts to engage with the negotiation of what was to become the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, and the influence and impact Australia was able to exercise in the settlement of international law. It will begin with some brief consideration of the first two United Nations Conferences on the Law of the Sea, before turning to Australia's efforts throughout the marathon negotiation of Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea.

Australia׳s remote location and position on the vast Indo-Australian plate mean that possesses one of the largest continental shelf areas in the world. The criteria in Article 76 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea permit the claiming on continental shelf to 200 nautical miles from territorial sea baselines, and if certain criteria are met based on the configuration and content of the seabed, to distances beyond. During the negotiations at UNCLOS III, Australia was a strong proponent of this extended shelf regime, as it was likely to have large areas beyond 200 nautical miles. Article 76 provides for a number of requirements to be met for a coastal State to assert sovereign rights over areas of continental shelf beyond 200 nautical miles, including a ten year deadline from becoming a party. This placed a disproportionate burden upon Australia, as it faced the same ten year time frame to lodge data with the Commission on the Limits on the Continental Shelf (CLCS) as other States with much smaller areas in issue. Australia also chose not to rely upon measures agreed between State parties to effectively extend this deadline, and to limit the requirements to be met within it. This paper looks at how Australian authorities approached the difficult task, while maintaining the standards required for data by the CLCS, and how the task was ultimately implemented. It also examines how the extended continental shelf arrangements interacted with the rest of Australia׳s law of the sea practice and maritime boundaries with other States. For example, after the entry into force of the Convention, Australia negotiated two maritime boundaries with neighbouring States that each explicitly dealt with areas beyond 200 nautical miles. It concludes with consideration of what issues remain unresolved in respect of the Australian continental shelf beyond 200 nautical miles. The paper will conclude at how Australia׳s implementation has raised new issues with neighbouring States, including an unresolved dispute in the South Pacific Ocean.

The development of the law of the sea has been one of the longest sags in the history of international law. While undoubtedly reaching a crescendo in 1982 with the adoption of the United Nations Co...

This paper analyses contemporary maritime claims in the Indian Ocean Region. It examines sovereignty disputes around the region, including in the Persian Gulf and Mozambique Channel before moving on to assertions of maritime jurisdiction. These include claims over internal and archipelagic waters, as well as assertions over rights of navigation in territorial waters and beyond to the exclusive economic zone (EEZ). The paper concludes with an examination of recent claims over areas of continental shelf beyond the EEZ and issues in relation to maritime boundary-making in the region.

Australian offshore jurisdiction is among the most complex in the world, not least in part because of the division in jurisdiction between the Commonwealth Government in Canberra, and the Australian state governments. State jurisdiction is increasingly important in Australia, with increases in maritime capabilities for state police forces, the proliferation of state marine parks as part of the suite of national parks and the relevance of state jurisdiction to native title. This article provides an introduction to the determination of maritime jurisdiction vested in the Australian states, an area of law generally poorly understood and seldom considered by publicists.

Part A: International Law Considerations in Maritime Regulation and Enforcement 1. A Zonal Approach to Maritime Regulation and Enforcement, Stuart Kaye 2. The High Seas Regime. A Model of Self Regulation?, Robin Warner 3. The Use of Force, Cameron Moore Part B: Role of States and other International Actors in Maritime Regulation and Enforcement 4. The Role of Flag States in Maritime Regulation and Enforcement, Sam Bateman 5. The Role of Coastal States in Maritime Regulation and Enforcement, Lowell Bautista 6. The Role of Port States in Maritime Regulation and Enforcement, Rosemary Rayfuse 7. The Role of Global Organizations in Maritime Regulation and Enforcement, Ashley Roach 8. The Role of Regional Organizations in Maritime Regulation and Enforcement, Kerry Tetzlaf 9. The Role of Courts and Tribunals in Maritime Regulation and Enforcement, Dale Stephens Part C: Regulation and Enforcement in Different Maritime Sectors 10. Fisheries Enforcement and the Concepts of Compliance and Monitoring, Control and Surveillance, Mary Ann Palma-Robles 11. Shipping - Safety of Life at Sea, Anthony Morrison 12. Shipping - Vessel Source Pollution, Erik J. Molenaar 13. Regulation of Offshore Hydrocarbon Exploration and Exploitation under International Law, Youna Lyons 14. The Regulation of Marine Scientific Research: Addressing challenges, advancing knowledge, Harriet Harden Davies 15. Deep Seabed Mining: Key Obligations in the Emerging Regulation of Exploration and Development in the Pacific, Robert Makgill and Ana P. Linhares 16. Transnational Crime, Douglas Guilfoyle 17. Combating Piracy and Armed Robbery at Sea: From Somalia to the Gulf of Guinea, Clive Schofield and Kamal Deen Ali Part D: Current Issues and Future Challenges 18. Regulation of Marine Renewable Energy, Anne Marie O'Hagan 19. The Potential to Regulate Bioprospecting for Marine Genetic Resources: Two Case Studies, Julia Jabour 20. Ocean Acidification: Scientific Surges, Lagging Law and Policy Responses, David Vanderzwaag and Katja Fennel 21. Use of Technology in Maritime Regulation and Enforcement, Chris Rahman 22. Cooperative Maritime Surveillance and Enforcement, Warwick Gullett and Yubing Shi 23. Developing New Regulatory Paradigms for the Conservation and Sustainable Use of Marine Biodiversity in Areas beyond National Jurisdiction, Robin Warner

This article will consider the broad geopolitical considerations in measures towards biodiversity conservation and governance of high seas areas. Traditionally, international law has provided for jurisdiction based upon flag State in high seas areas, and States have shown themselves reluctant to depart from this model. International organisations with responsibility for high seas living resource management have proven, in many cases, to be of limited utility in the sustainable management of high seas resources. This traditional norm of flag State jurisdiction, while still dominant, is now being joined by the use of supra-national management in the context of regional fisheries organisations under the United Nations Fish Stocks Agreement. Part of the reason for this limited effectiveness is the focus of individual States on national interest, which may undermine international cooperation. The paper explores what mechanisms exist within international law that would permit a more effective management of high seas biodiversity conservation, and how these may be used to combat the erosion of the effectiveness of measures by individual State interests. Recognition of geopolitical factors that undermine cooperation in biodiversity conservation, and active efforts to address these matters, will prove essential in the establishment of a successful regime for high seas areas.

This article considers the relevant international law pertaining to territorial sea baselines and reviews the application of that law to ice-covered coasts. The international literature concerning the status of ice in international law is examined and state practice for both the Arctic and Antarctic is reviewed. The Law of the Sea Convention contains virtually no provisions pertaining to ice, as during its negotiation, in an effort to reach a consensus, all discussion of Antarctica was avoided. International lawyers appear to favour the notion that where ice persists for many years and is fixed to land or at least is connected to ice that is connected to land, it may be able to generate territorial sea baselines. Neither the International Court of Justice nor any other international tribunal has had the opportunity to consider the status of ice, except in the most general terms. This article considers some alternatives and difficulties in their application. The impact of the Antarctic Treaty on any system...

Throughout the life of the 1959 Antarctic Treaty there has been considerable development in the law of the sea. Negotiated following the 1958 First United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea, at which the customary international law concepts of the territorial sea and continental shelf were codified into treaty law, the law of the sea has since developed through state practice and most importantly through the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. Whatever the merits of examining the interaction between Antarctica and the law of the sea have been in the past, there is much to suggest that the general significance of such issues is growing, especially as states seek to determine the outer limits of their continental shelf claims and in doing so determine Antarctic baselines. This article examines these issues from a general law of the sea perspective, taking into account the impact of the Antarctic Treaty while reviewing Australian practice in particular.

(1998). The Spratly Islands Dispute: A Legal Background. Maritime Studies: Vol. 1998, No. 102, pp. 14-25.

This chapter considers whether contemporary practice may lead to a further creeping of jurisdiction, not in a further grab for resources, but in an effort by States to provide themselves with greater security from threats from the sea. It examines contemporary and emerging practice in respect of maritime security, and addresses the question whether seeking greater control over security is the next generation of jurisdictional creep, and what erosion of existing freedoms might occur. The issue of military activities, including surveillance, in the exclusive economic zone (EEZ) of another State is one not directly dealt with in the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (LOSC) . The thrust of the proliferation security initiative (PSI) is to prevent the proliferation of WMD by sea, land and air. The rationalisation for States seeking to exclude is based upon their jurisdiction in the EEZ over environmental matters. Keywords: EEZ; environmental security; jurisdiction; LOSC; maritime security; military security; proliferation security initiative (PSI)

(1997). The Australia-Indonesia Maritime Boundary Treaty: A Review. Maritime Studies: Vol. 1997, No. 94, pp. 28-32.

Since the Antarctic Treaty was negotiated in 1959, there have been substantial developments in the law of the sea. One of the most significant developments has been the recognition granted to coastal state entitlements to claim a range of offshore maritime areas. Yet, one of the principal aims of the Antarctic Treaty was to eliminate sovereignty disputes between territorial claimants, and the treaty placed limitations on the assertion of new claims. Nevertheless, most Antarctic territorial claimants have asserted some form of Antarctic maritime claim. This article particularly considers Australia's position toward maritime claims offshore the Australian Antarctic Territory (AAT). It reviews the limitations imposed by the Antarctic Treaty, the difficulties in determining baselines in Antarctica, Australia's practice in declaring Antarctic maritime claims, and the potential range of maritime boundaries that Australia may one day have to delimit with neighboring states in the Southern Ocean.

In reaching its conclusion that an obligation lay upon the Albanian authorities to notify of the existence of a minefi eld in Albanian territorial waters, the International Court of Justice found: 1Such obligations are based, not on the Hague Convention of 1907, No. VIII, which is applicable in time of war, but on certain general and wellrecognized principles, namely: elementary considerations of humanity, even more exacting in peace than in war; the principle of the freedom of maritime communication; and every State’s obligation not to allow knowingly its territory to be used for acts contrary to the rights of other States.The statement has become one of the Court’s best-known passages, enjoying a currency in subsequent domestic, regional and international decisions in humanitarian, environmental, human rights, refugee, and maritime law, and forming the basis of what some consider to be a constitutionalist, valueoriented formulation of international law. By conjuring up ‘elementary considerations of humanity, even more exacting in peace than in war’, the Court deliberately echoed the Martens Clause from the 1899 and 1907 Hague Conventions, extracting and adapting to peacetime one of the core components of the clause – the ‘laws of humanity’ 2 – and transforming it into what appears to be a free-standing general principle of international law.

Applying the law of the sea in the polar regions creates great difflcultles. This Indicates a need to reassess the traditional notlons of the law of the sea. The polar reglons are distinct because they Increasingly have thelr own separate legal regimes. These Issues are examlned from the perspective of SIX bipolar law of the sea problems. A determlnation Is made as to whether the law of the sea deals adequately with the unique geographical, cllmatlc and jurlsdlctlonal problems which arlse In the polar reglons and If a sul generls approach to these issues Is requlred.

This article examines the content and ramifications of an Australian Parliamentary Committee's Report into the application of Australian law in the Australian Antarctic Territory (AAT). The Report's main findings suggest that Australian law should be more vigorously applied in Antarctica, and that current practices with regard to the operation and enforcement of Australian law are perceived as damaging to Australian sovereignty. This is particularly the case in the context of the virtual non-application of law to all foreign nationals within the AAT, to an extent far beyond the categories of persons exempted by Article VIII of the Antarctic Treaty. The article also discusses the possible ramifications and difficulties of giving effect to the Report's findings. Particular stress is placed upon the impact of asserting a 200-nautical-mile fishing or exclusive economic zone in the waters off the AAT, as well as the logistic difficulties that may become apparent if Australian sovereignty is more actively asserted. In this context, brief consideration is given to the Report's recommendations relating to the Antarctic environment and tourism within the AAT.

With a strong focus on Australian practice and interpretation of international law, this comprehensive cases and materials textbook will provide students with a contemporary understanding of an area of law that has seen major changes in recent years. Written by a team of pre-eminent experts, International Law: Cases and Materials with Australian Perspectives is unique in reflecting the Australian context, perspectives and values on international law. Each chapter covers a substantive area of the law with specialist topics on human rights, law of the sea, and international environmental law. Students will be able to readily identify the key principles, rules and distinctive learning points and will benefit from the clear exposition of state practice in the field, how it has contributed to the development of the law, and how Australian governments have viewed and interpreted international law.

Introduction The idea of sovereignty over territory is fundamental to international law. No State can exist without land, and thus the ways in which land can be acquired and retained are concerns of great importance for States. Many international disputes involve land, and are intrinsically bound up with land, and relative to the use of land, so as an issue, sovereignty sits at the heart of international relations as well as international law. All States possess territory, so for a State to exist it will need some land. No State has no land – although there are examples of ‘micro-States’, such as the Holy See, which have extremely small areas. One body that claims statehood, but no longer possesses territory, is the Sovereign Military Hospitaller Order of St John of Jerusalem of Rhodes and of Malta, better known as the Sovereign Order of Malta. The Order was expelled from its last remaining territory on the island of Malta in 1798. Since then it has occupied certain premises in Rome which possess extraterritorial status under international law. Few States recognise the Order, so it is at best a dubious example of a State with no territory. Title to territory is based on sovereignty, so it is necessary to indicate exactly what sovereignty will encompass. A good starting point is the judgment of Max Huber in the Island of Palmas Case : Sovereignty in the relation between States signifies independence. Independence in regard to portion of the globe is their right to exercise therein, to the exclusion of any other State, the functions of a State.