STRAITS, ARCHIPELAGOS AND DELIMITATION OF MARITIME BOUNDARIESRAFAEL ALEJANDRO LAGMAY SOLIS

DRAGON!!!

CORFU

CHAN

NEL CASE

CORFU

CHAN

NEL CASE

HM Orion: 1st Incident

CORFU

CHAN

NEL CASE

HM Mauritius: 2nd Incident

CORFU

CHAN

NEL CASE

Saumarez towed by Volage

CORFU

CHAN

NEL CASE

Mine in Corfu Channel

CORFU CASE: STRAITS

United Kingdom Position:Innocent passage through straits is a right under international law

CORFU CASE: STRAITS

Albania Position:While Corfu Channel is a strait geographically, it is not an international highway where right of passage exists because:1)Not a necessary route between two high seas2)Hardly used in international navigation; used exclusively for local traffic

CORFU CASE: STRAITS

Albania Position:

Foreign warships have no right to pass through Albanian territorial waters without prior authorization from Albania1)Having been at war with Greece at the time, it had a right to restrict the passage of warships2) The Royal Navy Ships sailed in combat formation, and number of guns and ships used betrayed an absence of innocence and showed an intention to intimidate Albania

CORFU CASE: STRAITS

Corfu Channel is a strait where right of passage exists Test in Determining WON body of water is a strait as per int’l law1) Geographical situation as connecting two parts of the high seas2) Fact of its being used for international navigation Warships have a right to transit passage in times of peace

CORFU

CHAN

NEL CASE

COQ

UIA: AN

ALYSIS OF TH

E ARCHIPELAG

O

DO

CTRINE

COQUIA

3rd UN Conference on the Law of the Sea, after 8 years of work in eleven continuous substantive sessions, finally approved the Convention of the Law of the Sea on 30 April 1982

1st and 2nd conference archipelagic doctrine was not given importance sufficient for discussion

COQUIA

Why important to Philippines: archipelagic doctrine was approved!!!

COQUIA

7 March 1955 (PHL Position Paper): “all waters around, between and connecting different islands belonging to the Philippine archipelago, irrespective of their width or dimension are necessary appurtenances of the land territory forming an integral part of the national or inland waters, subject to the exclusive sovereignty of the Philippines Philippine position: Philippine archipelago consists of a continuous chain of islands or islets in such a way that straight baselines could be easily drawn between appropriate points on outer islands or eyelets in such a way to encircle the whole archipelago without crossing unreasonably large expanses of water without infringing the principles laid down by the International Court of Justice in the Anglo-Norwegian case

COQUIA

14 March 1973 – the archipelagic states, namely: Fiji, Indonesia, Mauritius, and the Philippines, submitted to the Seabed Committee the principle on archipelagic doctrine

COQ

UIA

Principles:1. An archipelagic state, whose component islands and other natural features form an intrinsic geographic, economic and political entity, and historically have or may have been regarded as such may draw straight baselines connecting the outermost points of the outermost islands and drying reefs of the archipelago from which the extent of the territorial sea of the archipelagic state is or may be determined.2. The waters within the baselines, regardless of their depth of distance from the coast, the seabed and the subsoil thereof, and the superjacent airspace, as well as all their resources, belong and are subject to the sovereignty of the archipelagic state.3. Innocent passage of foreign vessels through the waters of archipelagic State shall be allowed in accordance with its national legislation, having regard to the existing rules of international law. Such passage shall be through sealanes as may be designated for the purpose by the archipelagic state

COQUIA

GUESS WHO WAS AGAINST THEARCHIPELAGIC DOCTRINE:MARITIME POWERS, LED BYTHE UNITED STATES!!!

ARGUMENT: MOBILITY OF VESSELS

COQ

UIA

PART IV ARCHIPELAGIC STATESArticle 49Legal status of archipelagic waters, of the air space over archipelagic waters and of their bed and subsoil1. The sovereignty of an archipelagic State extends to the waters enclosed by the archipelagic baselines drawn in accordance with article 47, described as archipelagic waters, regardless of their depth or distance from the coast.2. This sovereignty extends to the air space over the archipelagic waters, as well as to their bed and subsoil, and the resources contained therein.3. This sovereignty is exercised subject to this Part.4. The regime of archipelagic sea lanes passage established in this Part shall not in other respects affect the status of the archipelagic waters, including the sea lanes, or the exercise by the archipelagic State of its sovereignty over such waters and their air space, bed and subsoil, and the resources contained therein.

COQ

UIA

Article 52Right of innocent passage 1. Subject to article 53 and without prejudice to article 50, ships of all States enjoy the right of innocent passage through archipelagic waters, in accordance with Part II, section 3.

2. The archipelagic State may, without discrimination in form or in fact among foreign ships, suspend temporarily in specified areas of its archipelagic waters the innocent passage of foreign ships if such suspension is essential for the protection of its security. Such suspension shall take effect only after having been duly published.

COQ

UIA

Article53Right of archipelagic sea lanes passage :

TOO LONG FOR THIS SLIDE.

COQ

UIAConclusions:

- Maritime Powers: Restricted mobility of vessels- The archipelagic states were not altogether united during the negotiating stage of the conference- While the archipelagic doctrine is now recognized by the international community, the regime of the archipelagic state over its waters has been curtailed- Aircraft in transit passage shall observe rules of the air established by the International Civil Aviation Organization- During transit passage, foreign ships, including marine scientific research and hydrographic survey ships, may not carry out any research or survey activities without the prior authorization of the archipelagic state

GU

LF OF M

AINE CASE

GU

LF OF M

AINE

Facts:

29 March 1979 – Canada and USA signed a special agreement by which the parties decided to refer to the Court a long standing dispute between them concerning the maritime delimitation of the fisheries zones and continental shelf in the gulf of Maine25 November 1981 – The proceedings were instituted by filing a Special Agreement at the International Court of Justice; the Agreement called to Court to decide upon the conflicting claims in accordance with the “principles and rules of international law applicable in the matter as between the partiesParties requested that the ICJ form a 5-member chamber under Art. 26(2) of the Statute to hear the case (pursuant to Art. 40)

GU

LF OF M

AINE

Issue:

What is the course of the single maritime boundary that divides the continental shelf and fishery zones of Canada and the United States of America XXX ?

GU

LF OF M

AINE

Arguments:

Both: DELIMITATION IN ACCORDANCE WITH EQUITABLE PRINCIPLES…

Canada:-Art. 6 Geneva Convention-Arts. 74 and 83 UNCLOS

USA: Georges Bank claim-“primary coast”- 9 geographical circumstances- broad claim of “predominant interest”

GU

LF OF M

AINE

Ruling:

-No ruling on impossibility of drawing the line- Geographical Characteristics of the Area- Rejected Canada’s “basis of title” argument- “Application to the present case of criteria more especially derived from geography”- 3 Segments- Defined by geodetic coordinates

GU

LF OF M

AINE CASE

THANK YOU!GONG XI FA CAI!