Sea-level rise and the law of the sea: Future options

The World Ocean In Globalisation: Climate Change, Sustainable Fisheries, Biodiversity, Shipping, Regional Issues

Volumn , Issue , 2011, Pages 187-206

  Hayashi, Moritaka ^a  

^a WASEDA UNIVERSITY   (Japan)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84882567687     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.1163/9789004204225     Document Type: Chapter

References (53)

1. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report. Summary for Policy Makers, p. 2;
2. see also Table SPM.1 in ibid., at p. 3. Available at: .
3. Oceans and the Law of the Sea: Report of the Secretary-General, UN doc. A/63/63, of 10 March 2008, p. 89.
4. All references to 'miles' hereinafter are nautical miles.
5. It is not clear whether 'drying reefs' mean fringing reefs, or one type of low-tide elevations. In the latter case there is an inconsistency with paragraph 4 of the same Article, which provides that straight archipelagic baselines shall not be drawn to and from a low-tide elevation unless lighthouses or similar installations permanently above sea level have been built on it or where it is situated wholly or partly at a distance not exceeding the breadth of the territorial sea from the nearest island. L.M. Alexander, Alternative Interpretations of Geographic Articles in the 1982 LOS Convention (Kingston, RI: University of Rhode Island, 1990), pp. 58-59.
6. The outer limits of the continental shelf may be established by the coastal state by using various methods according to the geographical or geological features of the various parts of the shelf. Where appropriate, the coastal state may choose the limit of 200 miles from the baselines, or the outer edge of the continental margin where it extends beyond 200 miles, but in no case more than 350 miles from the baselines (Art. 76). See further discussion below. As to the continental shelf beyond 200 miles, see Part V in: D. Vidas (ed.), Law, Technology and Science for Oceans in Globalisation (Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff, 2010), pp. 423-589.
7. D.D. Caron, 'When Law Makes Climate Change Worse: Rethinking the Law of Baselines in Light of a Rising Sea Level', Ecology Law Quarterly, Vol. 17, 1990, p. 645.
8. On the ambiguous nature of Art. 121, see, e.g., B. Kwiatkowska and A.H.A. Soons, 'Entitlement to Maritime Areas of Rocks Which Cannot Sustain Human Habitation or Economic Life of Their Own', Netherlands Yearbook of International Law, Vol. 21, 1990, pp. 180-181;
9. R. Kolb, 'L'interprétation de l'article 121, paragraphe 3, de la Convention de Montego Bay sur le droit de la mer: Les "rochers qui ne se prêtent pas à l'habitation humaine ou à une vie économique proper..."', Annuaire franÇais de droit international, Vol. 40, 1994, p. 879;
10. E.D. Brown, The International Law of the Sea, Vol. I (Aldershot: Dartmouth, 1994), pp. 150-151;
11. R.R. Churchill and A.V. Lowe, The Law of the Sea, 3rd edn (Manchester University Press, 1999), p. 50.
12. See S.P. Menefee, '"Half Seas Over": The Impact of Sea Level Rise on International Law and Policy', UCLA Journal of Environmental Law and Policy, Vol. 9, 1991, p. 212
13. citing E.C.F. Bird and J.R.V. Prescott, 'Rising Sea Levels and National Maritime Claims', Marine Policy Reports, Vol. 1, 1989, p. 193.
14. See J.A. Roach and R. Smith, 'Straight Baselines: The Need for a Universally Applied Norm', ODIL, Vol. 31, 2000, p. 47.
15. A.H.A. Soons, 'The Effects of a Rising Sea Level on Maritime Limits and Boundaries', Netherlands International Law Review, Vol. 37, 1990, p. 216.
16. See ibid. Soons considers this provision is remarkable, since such a provision has not been included for the outer limit of the EEZ, even though the regime of the EEZ includes jurisdiction over seabed resources.
17. Art. 26 of the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, UNTS, Vol. 1155.
18. D. Freestone and J. Pethick, 'Sea Level Rise and Maritime Boundaries: International Implications of Impacts and Responses', in G.H. Blake (ed.), Maritime Boundaries (London: Routledge, 1994), p. 79;
19. Caron, 'When Law Makes Climate Change Worse', p. 636.
20. Alexander, Alternative Interpretations of Geographic Articles, p. 64.
21. Art. 7(2) provides that in such a case the appropriate points may be selected to draw straight baselines along the furthest seaward extent of the low-water line, and that notwithstanding subsequent regression of that line, the straight baselines shall remain effective until changed by the coastal state in accordance with the Convention. This provision was based on a draft originally proposed by Bangladesh for application to such areas as the Ganges delta. Alexander points out that one of the conditions which may cause the shoreline to retreat is a rising in sea level, resulting either from a global rise, or the subsidence of the adjacent land mass (ibid., p. 54).
22. Caron, 'When Law Makes Climate Change Worse', p. 635.
23. J. L. Jesus, 'Rocks, New-born Islands, Sea Level Rise and Maritime Space', in J. Frowein, K. Scharioth, I. Winkelmann and R. Wolfrum (eds.), Verhandeln für den Frieden. Negotiating for Peace (Berlin: Springer, 2003), pp. 602-603.
24. Soons, 'The Effects of a Rising Sea Level', p. 225. See also Freestone and Pethick, 'Sea Level Rise and Maritime Boundaries', p. 76.
25. See also Freestone and Pethick, 'Sea Level Rise and Maritime Boundaries', p. 76.
26. T. Palmer, 'Sea Level Change and Baselines', in Proceedings of the Canadian Hydrographic Conference and National Surveyors Conference 2008, available at , p. 4.
27. Arts. 5 and 16. For the continental shelf, Art. 76(9) requires the coastal state to deposit with the Secretary-General 'charts and relevant information', permanently describing the outer limits. Where the outer limit is drawn at a distance of 200 miles from the baselines, it is assumed that such 'relevant information' includes position of the baselines.
28. According to the UN Division for Ocean Affairs and the Law of the Sea, as at the end of 2008, 'only a relatively small number of States Parties have fully or partially complied with their deposit obligations'. See .
29. R. Jennings and A. Watts (eds), Oppenheim's International Law, 9th edn (London and New York: Longman, 1996), Vol. I, pp. 121-122.
30. See Soons, 'The Effect of a Rising Sea Level Rise', p. 230.
31. Freestone and Pethick, 'Sea Level Rise and Maritime Boundaries', p. 80.
32. The Royal Order of Malta, or the Sovereign Military Order of Malta, is a religious order engaged mainly in medical and humanitarian services and based in Rome, Italy. It has its own 'government', an independent magistracy, bilateral diplomatic relations with over 100 countries and is granted the status of permanent observer in many international organisations, such as the United Nations. The Order issues its own passports and stamps and creates public institutions, endowed with independent juridical personality. See .
33. Freestone and Pethick, 'Sea Level Rise and Maritime Boundaries', p. 80.
34. Caron, 'When Law Makes Climate Change Worse', p. 650.
35. Soons, 'The Effect of a Rising Sea Level Rise', p. 225;
36. Caron 'When Law Makes Climate Change Worse', p. 651;
37. See Soons, ibid., p. 231, who stresses the need to maintain original outer limits of maritime zones.
38. Freestone and Pethick, 'Sea Level Rise and Maritime Boundaries', p. 76.
39. Climate Change and International Security. Paper from the High Representative and the European Commission to the European Council, doc. S113/08, of 14 March 2008, p. 4. Available at .
40. E. g., General Assembly resolutions 62/215, para. 2, and 63/111, para. 2.
41. See also the discussion by T. Treves, 'The Development of the Law of the Sea since the Adoption of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea: Achievements and Challenges for the Future', in Vidas (ed.), Law, Technology and Science for Oceans in Globalisation, pp. 41-58, especially at pp. 49-51.
42. Report of the Meeting of States Parties, doc. SPLOS/3 (1995), para. 16. The last day 'within six months' was 16 May 1995.
43. Report of the Third Meeting of States Parties, doc. SPLOS/5 (1996), para. 20. The last day of 'the 18 months' was 16 May 1996.
44. SPLOS, Decision regarding the date of commencement of the ten-year period for making submission to the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf set out in article 4 of Annex II to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, doc. SPLOS/72 (2001).
45. SPLOS, Decision regarding the workload of the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf and the ability of States, particularly developing States, to fulfill the requirements of article 4 of annex II to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, as well as the decision contained in SPLOS/72, paragraph (a), doc. SPLOS/183 (2008), para. 1(a). See an overview in D. Vidas, 'A Note on Submissions and Preliminary Information on the Continental Shelf Beyond 200 Nautical Miles', in Vidas (ed.), Law, Technology and Science for Oceans in Globalisation, pp. 423-427.
46. For detailed analysis of these decisions, see A.G. Oude Elferink, 'Reviewing the Implementation of the LOS Convention: the Role of the United Nations General Assembly and the Meeting of States Parties', in A.G. Oude Elferink and D.R. Rothwell (eds), Ocean Management in the 21st Century: Institutional Frameworks and Responses (Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff, 2004), p. 295;
47. T. Treves, 'The General Assembly and the Meeting of States Parties in the Implementation of the LOS Convention', in A.G. Oude Elferink (ed.), Stability and Change in the Law of the Sea: The Role of the LOS Convention (Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff, 2005), p. 55;
48. A.G. Oude Elferink, 'Meeting of States Parties to the UN Law of the Sea Convention', IJMCL, Vol. 23, 2008, p. 769.
49. See, e.g., Annex II, Art. 2; Annex IV, Arts 4, 18 and 19.
50. Report of the eighteenth Meeting of States Parties, 13-20 June 2008, doc. SPLOS/184, para. 118.
51. The parties must, however, respect Art. 311(3), which provides inter alia that such agreements shall not relate to a provision derogation from which is incompatible with the effective execution of the object and purpose of the Convention, and that they shall not affect the application of the basic principles embodied therein.
52. D. Freestone and A.G. Oude Elferink, 'Flexibility and Innovation in the Law of the Sea - Will the LOS Convention Amendment Procedures Ever be Used?', in Oude Elferink (ed.), Stability and Change in the Law of the Sea, p. 209.
53. See M. Hayashi, 'The 1995 Agreement on the Conservation and Management of Straddling and Highly Migratory Fish Stocks: Significance to the Law of the Sea Convention', Ocean and Coastal Management, Vol. 29, 1995, p. 51.