To read the full-text of this research, you can request a copy directly from the author.
... 30 However, these proposals cannot be reconciled with existing international law and UNCLOS will not be easily changed or superseded. 31 This article will explore the options that are available to States de lege lata for stabilising otherwise fluctuating maritime entitlements through (II) unilateral claims, (III) acquiescence and (IV) bilateral arrangements. Chapter II considers rules governing the establishment of inner and outer maritime limits through unilateral claims of States and explains to what degree such limits can be stabilised under existing law. ...
Coastal States exercise sovereignty and sovereign rights in maritime zones, measured from their coasts. The limits to these maritime zones are bound to recede as sea levels rise and coastlines are eroded. Furthermore, ocean acidification and ocean warming are increasingly threatening coastal ecosystems, which States are obligated to protect and manage sustainably. These changes, accelerating as the planet heats, prompt an urgent need to clarify and update the international law of maritime zones. This book explains how bilateral maritime boundaries are established, and how coastal instability and vulnerable ecosystems can affect the delimitation process through bilateral negotiations or judicial settlement. Árnadóttir engages with core concepts within public international law to address emerging issues, such as diminishing territory and changing boundaries. She proposes viable ways of addressing future challenges and sets out how fundamental changes to the marine environment can justify termination or revision of settled maritime boundaries and related agreements.
It is a long known fact that climate change will result in sea level rise and dramatically changed coastlines for a number of coastal States, and the physical consequences of sea level rise are most likely unavoidable for several coastal States due to their geographical location, size and topography. It is highly debatable whether the Law of the Sea Convention is equipped for dealing with the current challenges of sea level rise and maritime limits, and it may be argued that its rule of ambulatory baselines may contribute to loss of territory, relocation of maritime zones, uncertainty and instability.
This article investigates the current status of the law regulating maritime limits which may be affected by sea level rise, and argues that the best solution is to adapt the law within the current legal framework of the Law of the Sea, by undertaking a liberal interpretation of the already existing provisions of the LOSC, instead of invoking the amendment procedures of the LOSC, a new supplementary agreement or creating new customary law. In particular, the article explores the option of re-interpreting the law of baselines in Article 7, offering an adapting measure that mitigates the climate change effects on sea level rise. It is argued that a liberal interpretation of the LOSC can contribute to increased stability and juridical protection of the maritime entitlements for some of the States suffering the consequences of sea level rise.