Maritime Boundaries

Achievements to date and unfinished business
  • G. H. Blake
Part of the The GeoJournal Library book series (GEJL, volume 78)

Abstract

Maritime boundary delimitation began in earnest soon after World War Two as the quest for hydrocarbon resources extended progressively offshore. In the half century since 1950 rather more than one third of the world’s potential international maritime boundaries have been agreed. Estimates of the potential number vary somewhat, but in 2000 it was approximately 430. The number has risen in recent years with the creation of several new coastal states such as Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania on the Baltic Sea coast. At the millennium there were some 160 formal agreements delimiting maritime boundaries between states, or 37 per cent of the estimated potential number. As the product of 50 years or more of delimitation endeavour this seems rather slow progress, averaging just over three agreements per annum. The number of annual agreements peaked during the 1970s while the Third UN Conference on the Law of the Sea was in progress. At the present rate it could take another 70 years before the bulk of the world’s maritime boundaries are in place. By that time the international community might have devised new ways of managing ocean space, and there may also be a number of new states eligible for a share of the seabed.

Keywords

Nickel Chromium Europe Cobalt Shipping 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    United Nations (1982) United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, United Nations Publications, New York. 192 pages.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Churchill, R.R. and A.V. Lowe (3rd edn. 1999) The Law of the Sea. Manchester University Press, Manchester. p. 147.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    British Institute of International and Comparative Law (1989) Joint Development of Offfshore Oil and Gas : A Model Agreement for States, B.I.I.C.L., London, 426 pages. and Fox, H. (ed) (1990) Joint Development of Offshore Oil and Gas : Revised Model Agreement and Conference Papers, B.I.I.C.L., London. 259 pages.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Dzurek, D.J. (1996). The Spratly Islands Dispute : Who’s on First? Maritime Briefing Vol. 2(1). International Boundaries Research Unit, Durham. 67 pages.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Smith, R.W. and B.L. Thomas (1998). Island Disputes and The Law of the Sea : An Examination of Sovereignty and Delimitation Disputes. Maritime Briefing Vol. 2(4). International Boundaries Research Unit, Durham. 27 pages.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    McDorman, T.L. and A. Chircop (2nd edn. 1991) The resolution of maritime boundary disputes in E. Gold (ed) Maritime Affairs : A World Handbook. Longman, Harlow. pp. 344–386.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Charney, J. I. and L.M. Alexander (eds) (1993) International Maritime Boundaries Vols. 1 and 2 (1993) Vol. 3 (1998). Martinus Nijhoff, Dordrecht for The American Society of International Law. 2,616 pages.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Roach, J.A. and R. W. Smith (2nd edn. 1994) United States Responses to Excessive Maritime Claims, Kluwer Law International The Hague..676 pages.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Scovazzi, T.G. Francalanci, D. Romano and S. Mongardini, (2nd edn. 1989). Atlas of the Straight Baselines, Guiffre Editore, Milan. 233 pages.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    U.S. Department of State (1989) Developing Standard Guidelines for Evaluating Straight Baselines. Limits in the Seas No 106. Bureau of Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific Affairs, 37 pages.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Ibib., p. 18.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Ibib., p.23Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • G. H. Blake

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations