ANALYSIS OF THE DATA

• The central purposes of the international law of the sea are to define various maritime zones, their extension and limits. According to the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea the continental shelf of coastal states extends at least to a distance of 200 nm from the baselines from which the breadth of the territorial sea is measured (Article 76(1) of UNCLOS).

• UNCLOS provides that information on the limits of the continental shelf beyond 200 nm from the baselines shall be submitted by the coastal state to a scientific and technical Commission, named the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf. The Commission is responsible for making recommendations to coastal states on matters related to the establishment of the outer limits of their continental shelf beyond 200 nm.

• According to UNCLOS, it is the task for adjacent and opposite neighboring states to delimit the maritime boundaries of their continental shelves. The delimitation is supposed to be effected by an agreement and if not possible within a reasonable time resort shall be made to procedures provided for in the dispute settlement part of UNCLOS. The Convention provides that this process shall be guided by the whole range of international law as defined in Article 38 of the Statute of the International Court of Justice. The most important outcome of this guidance is that it designates a law making role for international Courts and Tribunals. The purpose of continental shelf delimitation is to achieve an equitable solution, not to fulfill a specific technical criterion as in the CLCS procedure.

Means and methods of resolving maritime boundary disputes:

Article 33 of the UN Charter provides for the peaceful settlement of disputes by means of the parties’ own choice. These means always include negotiation. If negotiations are not successful, recourse may be had to conciliation, good offices (e.g. of the UN Secretary General), arbitration (ad hoc or according to annex VII UNCLOS or judicial settlement (ICJ/ITLOS)).

Methods of settling differences and disputes about overlapping entitlements include resolving any sovereignty differences, the establishment of a complete boundary, a partial boundary or a joint area, or combining some of those methods. Maritime boundaries are to be established by agreement in accordance with international law. Disputes and differences about sovereignty will be resolved by examining which State has more activity on the disputed territory.

The value of establishing maritime boundaries:

The potential political and security risks of boundary disputes are high. In this respect the speaker quoted Lord Curzon's: "frontiers are the razor's edge on which hang suspended…issues of war and peace…"

Unresolved boundaries may chill economic activity, such as exploration work or fishing, because of fear of action by the other State. Besides that, they may also in advertently cause disputes, if a fisherman is arrested for fishing in a border area or if an oil discovery is made in an area of overlapping claims, for instance.

Conversely, reaching agreement on a boundary brings positive benefits. Legal certainty means that economic activity can start. The oil industry can be licensed to work right up to the line. The enforcement of fisheries legislation is also possible right up to the line. A maritime boundary removes the “blight” caused by jurisdictional uncertainty.

CHINA:

In accordance with the decision of the Standing Committee of the Eighth National People's Congress of the People's Republic of China at its nineteenth session, the President of the People's Republic of China has hereby ratified the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea of 10 December 1982 and at the same time made the following statement:

1. In accordance with the provisions of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, the People's Republic of China shall enjoy sovereign rights and jurisdiction over an exclusive economic zone of 200 nautical miles and the continental shelf.

2. The People's Republic of China will effect, through consultations, the delimitation of the boundary of the maritime jurisdiction with the States with coasts opposite or adjacent to China respectively on the basis of international law and in accordance with the principle of equitability.

3. The People's Republic of China reaffirms its sovereignty over all its archipelagos and islands as listed in article 2 of the Law of the People's Republic of China on the territorial sea and the contiguous zone, which was promulgated on 25 February 1992.

4. The People's Republic of China reaffirms that the provisions of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea concerning innocent passage through the territorial sea shall not prejudice the right of a coastal State to request, in accordance with its laws and regulations, a foreign State to obtain advance approval from or give prior notification to the coastal State for the passage of its warships through the territorial sea of the coastal State.

Declaration made after ratification (25 August 2006) Declaration under article 298:The Government of the People's Republic of China does not accept any of

the procedures provided for in Section 2 of Part XV of the Convention with respect to all the categories of disputes referred to in paragraph 1 (a) (b) and (c) of Article 298 of the Convention.

ICELAND: Declaration made upon ratification (21 June 1985): Upon depositing the

instrument of ratification of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, the Permanent Representative of Iceland, on behalf of the Government of Iceland, declares that under article 298 of the Convention the right is reserved that any interpretation of article 83 shall be submitted to conciliation under Annex V, section 2, of the Convention.

The normal baseline is the low water line, that certain bays may be closed that straight baselines, recognised in the case of UK v. Norway and included in the 1958 Geneva Convention on the Territorial Sea and the 1982 UNCLOS, could be drawn around deeply indented coastlines or fringes of islands. According to the speaker a lot of States - with the exception of the US - have drawn straight baselines, sometimes in a very liberal way. The ICJ has adopted a rather strict interpretation in boundary cases but without making any finding that a particular straight baseline has been drawn in violation of UNCLOS. There are no cases dealing with baselines specifically, later than UK v. Norway.

CANADA: As of July 2001, Canada has not filed an official claim to an extended continental shelf with the UN Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf. Canada has through 2013 to file such a claim.

DENMARK: Denmark ratified the extended continental shelf claim to UNCLOS on November 16, 2004. The Kingdom of Denmark declared that the Danish straits including the Great Belt, the Little Belt, and the Danish part of the Sound, formed on the foundation of the Copenhagen Treaty of 1857 are a legal part of the Danish regime. As set out in the treaty section of the United Nations Office of Legal Affairs, it should remain so.

The Danish autonomous province of Greenland has the nearest coastline to the North Pole, and Denmark argues that the Lomonosov Ridge is in fact an extension of Greenland. Danish project included LORITA-1 expedition in April–May 2006 and included tectonic research during LOMROG expedition, which were part of the 2007-2008 International Polar Year program. It comprised the Swedishicebreaker Oden and Russian nuclear icebreaker NS 50 Let Pobedy. The latter led the expedition through the ice fields to the research location. Further efforts at geological study in the region were carried out by the LOMROG II expedition, which took place in 2009, and the LOMROG III expedition, launched in 2012.

NORWAY: Norway ratified the UNCLOS in late 1996 and on November 27, 2006, Norway made an official submission into the UN Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf in accordance with the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (article 76, paragraph 8). There are provided arguments to extend the Norwegian seabed claim beyond the 200 nmi (370 km; 230 mi) EEZ in three areas of the northeastern Atlantic and the Arctic: the "Loop Hole" in the Barents Sea, the Western Nansen Basin in the Arctic Ocean, and the "Banana Hole" in the Norwegian Sea. The submission also states that an additional submission for continental shelf limits in other areas may be posted later.

RUSSIA: Russia ratified the UNCLOS in 1997 and had until 2007 to make its claim to an extended continental shelf.

Russia is claiming a large extended continental shelf as far as the North Pole based on the Lomonosov Ridge within their Arctic sector. Moscow believes the eastern Lomonosov Ridge is an extension of the Siberian continental shelf. The Russian claim does not cross the Russia-US Arctic sector demarcation line, nor does it extend into the Arctic sector of any other Arctic coastal state.

On December 20, 2001, Russia made an official submission into the UN Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf in accordance with the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (article 76, paragraph 8). In the document it is proposed to establish the outer limits of the continental shelf of Russia beyond the 200-nautical-mile (370 km) Exclusive Economic Zone, but within the Russian Arctic sector. The territory claimed by Russia in the submission is a large portion of the Arctic within its sector, extending to but not beyond the geographic North Pole. One of the arguments was a statement that Lomonosov Ridge, an underwater mountain ridge passing near the Pole, and Mendeleev Ridge on the Russian side of the Pole is extensions of the Eurasian continent. In 2002 the UN Commission neither rejected nor accepted the Russian proposal, recommending additional research.

USA: As of March 2012, the United States had not ratified the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea and, therefore, had not filed an official claim to an extended continental shelf with the UN Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf.

In August 2007, an American Coast Guard icebreaker, the USCGC Healy, headed to the Arctic Ocean to map the sea floor off Alaska. Larry Mayer, director of the Center for Coastal and Ocean Mapping at the University of New Hampshire, stated the trip had been planned for months, having nothing to do with the Russians planting their flag. The purpose of the mapping work aboard the Healy is to determine the extent of the continental shelf north of Alaska.

RESULTS:

Iceland vs. United Kingdom (Fisheries Jurisdiction): The Court ordered for further negotiations covered by the 1973 interim agreement.

Continental Shelf and Fisheries Boundaries in the Arctic Region: Canada-Denmark: continental shelf agreed (December 17, 1973)

Denmark-Iceland: continental shelf and fisheries boundary agreed (November 11, 1997)

Denmark-Norway: continental shelf and fisheries boundary agreed (December 18, 1995) following adjudication by ICJ

Denmark-Iceland-Norway: tri-point agreed (November 11, 1997)

Denmark-Norway: continental shelf and fisheries boundary agreed (February 20, 2006)

Iceland-Norway: fisheries boundary following the 200 mm limit of Iceland’s EEZ agreed (May 28, 1980); continental shelf joint zone agreed following the report of the Conciliation Commission (October 22, 1981)

Russia-US: single maritime boundary agreed (June 1 1990)

Fisheries Boundaries (EEZ) in the Northeast Asia:

Korea-Japan Fisheries Agreement of 1999

The Agreement of 1999 is agreed not upon the ultimate EEZ boundaries but upon the provisional joint fishing zones and EEZ fisheries zones of a limited extent which are to be considered as each Party’s EEZ for the purpose of implementation of the Agreement. As such, there is no doubt that the Agreement is a provisional arrangement of a practical nature envisaged in Paragraph 3 of Article 74 of the LOS Convention pending the ultimate agreement on boundaries of EEZ. Thus the Agreement purports to regulate fisheries relations between Korea and Japan pending the ultimate delimitation of EEZ boundaries between the two countries. Related to this, the Agreement obliges the two countries “to continue to negotiate in good faith for an earlier delimitation of the exclusive economic zone”.

Korean-Chinese Fisheries Agreement

The Fisheries Agreement between Korea and China shares some of the fundamental aspects with the Fisheries Agreement between Korea and Japan: it is a fisheries agreement based upon the EEZ fisheries regime of the LOS Convention and it is a provisional fisheries agreement pending the ultimate delimitation of EEZ boundaries. As it is a fisheries agreement based upon the EEZ regime of Korea and China, Article 1 of the Agreement makes it clear that the Agreement applies to Korea’s EEZ and China’s EEZ. And then Article 2 of the Agreement provided that: “Each Contracting Party shall permit, in accordance with the provisions of this Agreement and its relevant laws and regulations, the fishing activities by the nationals and fishing vessels of the other Party in its exclusive economic zone”. And then detailed provisions on mutual fishing access follow in Articles 2 to 5 of the Agreement.

Sino-Japanese Fisheries Agreement of 1997

The new fisheries agreement between China and Japan is a provisional fisheries agreement for regulating fisheries relations between them on the basis of an EEZ fisheries regime pending the ultimate delimitation of EEZ ultimate boundaries between China and Japan. Thus the two Governments expressed ‘their intentions to continue the consultations on the delimitation of the exclusive economic zones and the continental shelves of both countries’, and ‘to make efforts so that a mutually acceptable agreement is reached’. Both Parties agreed that: “Nothing in this Agreement shall be deemed to prejudice the position of either Contracting Party in regard to any question on the law of the sea”. Also more specifically, both Parties confirmed in the Agreed Minute that the Provisional Measure Zone ‘should not be deemed to prejudice the position of either Contracting Party in regard to the delimitation of the exclusive economic zones and the continental shelves’.

 

Conclusion

The researchers had concluded that through UNCLOS’ declaration and statement, in relation to territorial disputes in the sea, it has resolved such events which could affect the relations of the involved parties. The EEZ in Northeast Asia, the Fisheries Jurisdiction between UK and Iceland, and the Arctic Region maritime jurisdiction were issues that UNCLOS can be used of, in terms of relating it to UNCLOS’ declarations and statements. The researchers had examined that upon ratifying the UNCLOS’ regulations, each parties has the right to claim such boundaries unless they had grasped the rules of UNCLOS. The researchers had also concluded that negotiations should be made in accordance to the UN’s recommendation as part of the resolution process. So, each and one of them should really work together so that there would be no imminent conflicts among them.

Recommendation The researchers recommend the strong enforcement of the laws of

UNCLOS because even though parties have had agreements, still, the involved parties (China, Japan, and Korea) have not followed what they had agreed upon. Recognition of boundaries and fishing zone should also be taken in action by the UN, with the assistance of UNCLOS. UN should consider the possibility of a tension among opposing nations, like what is happening between Philippines and China, because it could endanger the safety of individuals and it would affect the relationships of both parties. The UNCLOS is already effective in terms of its laws and regulations but the execution of its laws and regulations is very weak, especially on exercising it. And so, UNCLOS should be as firm as it is when agreements are being made and supervising it is really a necessity because there is no assurance that involved parties are actually following it. UNCLOS needs more back-up and power.