Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

UN Deadline for World Seabed Claims

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • UN Deadline for World Seabed Claims

    I just note that claims for seabed sovereignty around the world have to be submitted to an UN Commission. The deadline is midnight NY April 13.

    Not sure how the ownership boundaries are decided if there are overlapping claims.

    World seabed disputes face U.N. deadline

    12 May OSLO (Reuters) - The world faces disputes over the seabed from the South China Sea to the North Pole at a May 13 U.N. deadline for claims meant as a milestone toward the final fixing of maritime boundaries.

    Most coastal states have to define their continental shelves, areas of shallower water offshore, by Wednesday to a U.N. Commission that aims to set limits for national rights to everything from oil and gas to life on the ocean floor.

    "This is the sweep after which the maritime limits should be fixed ... the final big adaptation of the world map," said Harald Brekke, a Norwegian official who is a vice-chair of the U.N. Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf.

    "We are seeing many overlapping submissions," he told Reuters of the deadline, set in 2004. Forty-eight nations have made full claims and dozens more have made preliminary submissions under the deadline.

    Russia has made the most spectacular claim by using a mini-sub to plant a flag on the seabed beneath the North Pole in 2007, an area that Denmark also says it will also claim.

    And submissions have highlighted territorial disputes between Japan and Russia in the Pacific, between China and neighbors over the South China Sea and between Britain and Argentina over the Falkland Islands in the South Atlantic.

    "China possesses indisputable sovereignty ... over the South China Sea islands and their near areas," Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Ma Zhaoxu said of islands disputed with countries including Malaysia, Vietnam and the Philippines. ....

    Under existing law, nations can exploit the seabed if their continental shelves extend beyond territorial seas stretching 200 nautical miles from the coast. But the exact limits have not been defined on the map -- until now.

    The United States is among dozens of nations not bound by the May 13 deadline, since it has not ratified the Convention on the Law of the Sea. President Barack Obama hopes to ratify.


    Last edited by Merlin; 13 May 09,, 14:01.

  • #2
    April 13.
    You meant May, right?

    Ok so once the UN have received all the claims from all the countries, then what? I doubt they'd be able to solve any of the disputes around the world

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Steezy View Post
      You meant May, right?

      Ok so once the UN have received all the claims from all the countries, then what? I doubt they'd be able to solve any of the disputes around the world
      Yes the deadline is May 13, 2009.

      This is an important matter as it involves the seabed sovereignty of many countries. Off hand no simple clarification is available. if you like you can read the legal small prints in this website, and try to explain to us.

      UN Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf (CLCS)

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Steezy View Post
        You meant May, right?

        Ok so once the UN have received all the claims from all the countries, then what? I doubt they'd be able to solve any of the disputes around the world
        Yeah, I agree. Here in SE Asia I doubt if the decision would be fair since China is involved and their influence now is strong but look at the picture how large they are claiming...
        Attached Files
        sigpic

        Comment


        • #5
          I cannot find much details on this issue.

          From what I can see, this UN Commission serves to sort out the undersea continuental shelf claims, not the above-sea land and islands territorial claims. So which ever country is internationally accepted as the rightful ower of these islands, this Commission will try to decided on the boundary of the continuental shelves extending beyond them.

          I think the decisions on disputed claims will take a long time.

          Comment


          • #6
            This article made more clarifications on the issue and what nations are claiming.

            69 nations ask UN to weigh claims on ocean limits

            14 May With the bounty of the high seas at stake, 69 nations met a U.N. deadline Wednesday for submitting claims on how to define the outer limits of their continental shelfs. ....

            "There are about 65 who could be entitled," said Hariharan Pakshi Rajan, who heads the U.N.'s Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf. "There is no official U.N. list on this. This is just an estimate."

            The deadline was for submissions from all countries that signed the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea to define the dimensions of their claimed continental shelfs _ a group that notably excludes the United States.

            In the U.S., Senate opponents say the Law of the Sea requires the country to surrender important sovereignty rights. But the administration of President Barack Obama has indicated it wants to sign the treaty.

            Beyond the 200 nautical mile zone that extends from every country's coastline, the open ocean is subject to the Law of the Sea. On May 1, Switzerland became the latest and 158th nation to ratify it.

            The commission's job is to examine and verify the scientific and technical data that each nation submits. That is used to determine whether a nation can lay claim to areas of the continental shelfs extending beyond the 200-mile zone.

            Some such areas are hotly disputed. The Philippine president signed a law in March, for example, affirming sovereignty over islands also claimed by China and Vietnam, including ones believed to be rich in oil, gas and fish in the South China Sea. ....

            But the commission doesn't act as a judge in border disputes, he said. The commission's role among nations, he said, is only to help determine "sovereign rights for the purposes of exploring and exploiting its resources."

            Comment


            • #7
              Based on the article given by Merlin it is stated that the commission could not decide like in SE Asia conflict if to whom the territory should belong and only "help to determine". I don't know if my interpretation is right but for me since they don't have power to decide, therefore, whatever the result of the commission it is useless if other party/s don't adhere to the decision. So what's the point?
              sigpic

              Comment


              • #8
                Unless there are military conflicts, many minor land border disputes are settled by negotiations, bargaining and mutual agreements of the countries concerned. After this, other countries usually expressed their agreements.

                This would be the same if some islands are of interest to only two countries. What happens when these two countries cannot agree?

                Recently there has been a case of Singapore and Malaysia both laying claim to a small lighthouse island and a few 'rocks'. Finally they agree to bring the case to, and to abide by the judgement of the International Court of Justice, commonly called the World Court (not the International Criminal Court) at the Hague, Netherlands.

                They both argued the case and finally in May 2008 the judges gave the Court's verdict, see below.

                Singapore awarded sovereignty over island by World Court

                This island is only of the size of half a football field. The issue now is how far is the continuental shelf border with the closest land which is a part of Malaysia.

                I think both Singapore and Malaysia are signatories of the UN Law of the Seas Convention.
                Last edited by Merlin; 15 May 09,, 07:25.

                Comment


                • #9
                  This explains the sea-bed claims very well. Click into the link to read more.

                  Suddenly, a wider world below the waterline

                  Coastal states have now made their bids for vast new areas of continental shelf

                  14 May [Economist] YOU never know what may come in handy. That is the principle behind the rush for the seabed that reached a climax of sorts this week with the deadline on May 13th for lodging claims to extensions of the continental shelf. When Russia sold Alaska to the United States for two cents an acre (five cents a hectare) in 1867, it thought it was parting with a useless lump of ice. After gold was discovered there, it began kicking itself. Now it is one of a host of countries eagerly laying claim to swathes of the seafloor that may one day yield huge riches. ...

                  The rules for this carve-up derive from the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. These gave all countries that had ratified the treaty before May 13th 1999 ten years in which to claim any extension of their continental shelf beyond the normal 200 nautical miles (370km), so long as that extension was no more than 100 miles from the point at which the sea reached a depth of 2.5km, and no more than 350 miles from land. Any other country wishing to make a claim has ten years from the date on which it ratified the treaty. It must then, like all the states that have now made their claims, submit copious scientific evidence to show that the seabed in question is indeed continental shelf.

                  If it passes all the tests, it can exploit the minerals on or under the seabed in this margin, so long as any revenue is shared with poorer and landlocked states. No new rights are given over fish or other creatures in the water column, but living creatures on or below the seafloor that are immobile “at the harvestable stage” are treated like minerals. Harvesting here is not entirely fanciful. Pharmaceutical companies are already mincing up marine creatures known as sea cucumbers that may yet provide drugs for treating cancer. Sea cucumbers can move, but other useful plants or animals may be stuck in the mud.

                  More beguiling perhaps are metal deposits ... and energy reserves. These include not just petroleum but also methane hydrates, white, sorbet-like compounds that exist in profusion under the sea, perhaps containing more energy in total than all known deposits of fossil fuels. They can often be found on the slopes of the continental shelf, though as yet they are impossibly awkward to extract. In the long run, however, they may prove valuable to countries like Japan and India with few energy sources on land.

                  For many countries, though, the first booty from any newly acquired seabed will be either oil or gas, both of which can now be extracted fairly easily from deep water. It was surely with this in mind that Russia, in 2001 the first country to submit a continental-shelf claim, made a bid to extend its rights in both the Pacific and the Arctic oceans. Six years later a Russian submersible was to plant a titanium flag on the seabed 4km below the North Pole.

                  Since the Russian application, 49 others have followed, some making multiple claims in several places, some submitted jointly by several countries in one area. Some countries have also made more than one submission. Thus Britain, France, Ireland and Spain have jointly made a claim in the Celtic sea and the Bay of Biscay. Britain has made a second in respect of Ascension island in the South Atlantic, a third concerning the Hatton-Rockall area in the North Atlantic and a fourth concerning the Falklands, South Georgia and the South Sandwich islands in the South Atlantic. ....

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Yeah. I agree that we should seek the help of the World Court in conflict like this but that's only possible if both parties agrees to settle it there. What if one of the parties is reluctant to bring it to World Court?
                    sigpic

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by xrough View Post
                      ..What if one of the parties is reluctant to bring it to World Court?
                      The scenario may become something like this. The more powerful and influencial country A will threaten military action, and receive international recognition by other countries for its claim. It may also offer some sweatener to the other country. So the other country B would have no choice but to withdraw its claim.

                      If not, country A will give some excuse, real or unreal, and take some military action.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Merlin View Post
                        The scenario may become something like this. The more powerful and influencial country A will threaten military action, and receive international recognition by other countries for its claim. It may also offer some sweatener to the other country. So the other country B would have no choice but to withdraw its claim.

                        If not, country A will give some excuse, real or unreal, and take some military action.
                        So it means that whether the conflict will tackle in the UN Commission or not the more powerful country claiming the territory still get what it wants by threatening other claimants. Therefore, we could say that the UN Commission is no use at all?
                        sigpic

                        Comment

                        Working...
                        X