Abstract

Abstract The legal order of the oceans centres on coastal geography which is undergoing unprecedented changes. Claims to national jurisdiction are based on distance from the coast and are only enforceable as long as they are consistent with international law. Consequently, sea level rise and submergence of coastal features can affect the location and enforceability of unilateral maritime limits and bilateral boundaries. Some States wish to maintain previously established entitlements around submerged territory but the only way to prevent fluctuations of unilateral limits is through artificial conservation of coastlines. Therefore, a change, in either the location of maritime entitlements or rules governing such entitlements, is inevitable. It has been proposed that maritime limits should be frozen to ensure opposability as coastlines change. That would enable States to exercise sovereignty and sovereign rights over areas that have no anchor in coastal territory, arguably causing a departure from the land dominates the sea principle and a Grotian Moment in the law of the sea. However, this article concludes that it is unlikely that proposals to freeze maritime limits will change the law of the sea and that the proposals may in fact serve to deter another paradigm shift, one that involves a departure from the principle of stable boundaries.

Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call