Geography Reference
In-Depth Information
decide who owns the Hanish Islands and then
address the boundary problem. Similarly, if there is
uncertainty about the location of the land
boundary terminus at the coast, the adjacent
maritime boundary cannot be agreed. In the Red
Sea, there is no Egypt-Sudan maritime boundary
because of a longstanding land boundary dispute,
and offshore oil exploration has been abandoned.
The world's most dazzling island sovereignty
question concerns the Spratly Islands, scattered over
a vast area in the South China Sea. All the 500 or so
features are claimed by China, Taiwan andVietnam,
thirty-three by the Philippines and twelve by
Malaysia, while Brunei claims an area of seabed, but
no islands.
Unfortunately, these terms have never been defined,
nor has the requirement 'not to depart to any
appreciable extent from the general direction of the
coast' (Article 7.3). Because offshore limits are
measured from either the low water mark or straight
baselines, states are often tempted to make excessive
claims inconsistent with the Convention.
Geographers have proposed some sensible guidelines
for straight baseline evaluation, but they have never
been formally adopted (US Department of State
1987). Victor Prescott (1988) has made a significant
contribution to the exposure of illegal baselines,
while the United States has lodged objections to
almost half the seventy straight baseline claims
declared (Roach and Smith 1994: pp. 77-81).
Definition of geographical terms
Islands can cause headaches for negotiators in two
other respects. First, UNCLOS 1982 defines an island
as 'a naturally formed area of land surrounded by
water which is above water at high tide' (Article
21.7), whereas rocks which cannot sustain human
habitation or economic life of their own shall have
no exclusive economic zone or continental shelf'
(Article 121.3). Not surprisingly, there are arguments
about what is an island and what is a 'rock'. Genuine
islands give states the right to surrounding EEZ and
seabed, whereas rocks give only limited advantages
in territorial waters (up to 12 miles offshore) and no
advantage elsewhere. Second, negotiators must agree
on what weight to give to islands when delimiting a
boundary. Depending on size and location, islands
may be given the same effect as mainland, or half
effect, partial effect, or no effect at all. Many
overlapping maritime claims occur because states
give more weight to their own islands than to those
of their neighbour.
Technical problems
Both land and maritime boundary disputes can
arise for technical reasons, sometimes because
those involved in negotiations have insufficient
training or have not consulted technical experts.
Accessible publications on technical aspects of
boundary delimitation are published by the
International Boundaries Research Unit in
Durham (Adler 1995; Beazley 1994). The
International Hydrographic Organisation has
published the standard work on the subject (IHO
1990). Some examples of what can go wrong are:
•
Misunderstanding nautical charts,
especially the
properties of the Mercator projection. Scale
increases with latitude, boundary lengths are
difficult to measure, and a straight line drawn
on such a chart does not represent the shortest
distance between two points (i.e. the geodesic
line).
•
Matching geodetic datums.
The regular
geometrical shape approximating the shape of
the Earth used for practical mapping and
surveying is known as the
ellipsoid.
In the past,
(especially) national surveys used ellipsoids of
different shapes and sizes. Coordinates derived
from one system have to be matched with
those from another. The geodetic datum used
is often not stated in boundary agreements,
and confusion results.
Excessive baseline claims
Another common cause of offshore disputes is the
adoption of excessive baselines. Coastal states are
permitted to use straight baselines along coastlines
that are 'deeply indented or cut into, or if there is a
fringe of islands along the coast in its immediate
vicinity' (UNCLOS 1982, Article 7.1).
