Addendum
My original post mentioned the covert annexation of the Spratly Islands in the so-called South China Sea. Since that was written, it has been pointed out that there is a rule covering such incidents by UNCLOS. My studies revealed the following:
United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea of 10 December 1982
Part V
Exclusive Economic Zone
Article 60, Sect 8, states;
"Artificial islands, installations and structures do not possess the status of islands. They have no territorial sea of their own, and their presence does not affect the delimitation of the territorial sea, the exclusive economic zone or the continental shelf."
It is noteworthy that this refers to “artificial islands”, and it seems debatable that the Spratly Islands are, in fact, “artificial”, i.e., they are not man-made. Thus, the question that we are faced with is; just because they are being reclaimed and extended, does that mean that they are now artificial? By extension of that thought, should we, therefore, declare parts of The Netherlands artificial?
I feel that lawyers specializing in oceanic law have an interesting predicament to face.
Do you agree?
Authorities establish rules and regulations to control and protect populations. Bad guys seek ways around the rules and regulations to exploit populations. It is a cat and mouse game and the mice never go away no matter how many the cat catches. Lawyers and politicians will get rich working this one out and when they do it will no longer be an issue.
ReplyDeleteIt occurs to me, with respect John, that the elephant and the mouse metaphor would be better suited. And, now, after further thought, my suggestion of American, European, and African oceans seems less tongue-in-cheek, but quite sound.
Delete