Skip to main content

LUP Student Papers

LUND UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES

Imaginary Coastlines: Analysing Baseline Fixation under the Law of the Sea

Holst, Johan LU (2024) JURM02 20241
Department of Law
Faculty of Law
Abstract
As a consequence of climate change, global sea-level rise is expected to increase significantly in the coming years, posing potentially catastrophic threats to coastal states. This raises critical questions in international law, including that of the potential loss of maritime zones and associated entitlements for coastal states. Under the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), the seaward limits of maritime zones and the associated maritime entitlements are measured from the baseline which, according to Article 5 of the Convention, is defined as the low-water line along the coast.

Under the current interpretation of the law of the sea, baselines as defined in UNCLOS are ambulatory, shifting with the accretion and recession of... (More)
As a consequence of climate change, global sea-level rise is expected to increase significantly in the coming years, posing potentially catastrophic threats to coastal states. This raises critical questions in international law, including that of the potential loss of maritime zones and associated entitlements for coastal states. Under the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), the seaward limits of maritime zones and the associated maritime entitlements are measured from the baseline which, according to Article 5 of the Convention, is defined as the low-water line along the coast.

Under the current interpretation of the law of the sea, baselines as defined in UNCLOS are ambulatory, shifting with the accretion and recession of the actual coastline. This means that land inundation caused by sea-level rise would require the outer limits of maritime zones to move landwards, resulting in the loss of associated rights. To protect the existing rights of coastal states, the ILC has suggested preserving current maritime entitlements through the fixation of baselines. Given that a formal revision of UNCLOS appears politically unfeasible, the ILC suggests that this fixation could be achieved through a reinterpretation of existing UNCLOS provisions, particularly Article 5. I describe the attempt towards such a solution the interpretative approach of the ILC.

The process of treaty interpretation is governed by Articles 31-33 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (VCLT). These articles form a coherent system of rules while at the same time allowing a degree of flexibility for the interpreter to adapt the interpretation to relevant circumstances. However, the interpretative approach of the ILC could potentially risk stretching the meaning of the treaty terms to a degree which might go beyond the intended margins of flexibility laid out in the VCLT articles. This could have negative implications for the practice of treaty interpretation as well as for the status and predictability of UNCLOS.

I argue however that a solution might be found in the potential reference to separate legal regimes emerging in the area, through a dynamic application of Article 31(3)(c) VCLT. Whether by means of a treaty or as a rule of customary international law, for such a regime to impact the interpretation of UNCLOS, it would need to be applicable to all treaty parties, which could be achieved by its acceptance as an objective regime with effects on third parties. However, while an embryonic customary rule of law is emerging among some states, the current state practice and accompanying opinio juris are still insufficient to establish it as a rule of law. Until a customary law norm or other relevant rule of international law is identified and widely accepted among the treaty parties, alleging the permissibility of baseline fixation through an expansive interpretation of UNCLOS should be regarded as a proactive approach of the ILC.

The difficulties in reaching a swift solution to the issue of sea-level rise should not hinder efforts to protect the rights of vulnerable states. Solutions should however meet the requirements regulating the process of treaty interpretation. Through international efforts to recognise the rights for vulnerable states to maintain existing rights and obligations, preferably though the emergence of customary or treaty law, practical solutions can be presented which are in line with this legal framework. (Less)
Abstract (Swedish)
Som en följd av klimatförändringarna förväntas den globala havsnivåhöjningen att stiga avsevärt under de kommande åren, vilket medför potentiellt
katastrofala hot mot kuststater. Detta väcker kritiska frågor inom folkrätt, inklusive den om den potentiella förlusten av maritima zoner och tillhörande
rättigheter för kuststater. Enligt FN:s havsrättskonvention (UNCLOS) mäts
havszonernas yttergränser och de tillhörande maritima rättigheterna från baslinjen som, enligt artikel 5 i konventionen, definieras som lågvattenlinjen
längs kusten.

Under den nuvarande tolkningen av havsrätten är baslinjerna som definieras
i UNCLOS ambulatoriska, vilket innebär att de ändras med förflyttningen av
den faktiska kustlinjen. Detta innebär att... (More)
Som en följd av klimatförändringarna förväntas den globala havsnivåhöjningen att stiga avsevärt under de kommande åren, vilket medför potentiellt
katastrofala hot mot kuststater. Detta väcker kritiska frågor inom folkrätt, inklusive den om den potentiella förlusten av maritima zoner och tillhörande
rättigheter för kuststater. Enligt FN:s havsrättskonvention (UNCLOS) mäts
havszonernas yttergränser och de tillhörande maritima rättigheterna från baslinjen som, enligt artikel 5 i konventionen, definieras som lågvattenlinjen
längs kusten.

Under den nuvarande tolkningen av havsrätten är baslinjerna som definieras
i UNCLOS ambulatoriska, vilket innebär att de ändras med förflyttningen av
den faktiska kustlinjen. Detta innebär att översvämning orsakad av havsnivåhöjning skulle kräva att havszonernas yttre gränser flyttas inåt landet, vilket
resulterar i förlust av tillhörande rättigheter inom dessa zoner. Mot bakgrund
av detta har ILC föreslagit att nuvarande maritima rättigheter kan fixeras på
sina nuvarande positioner. Med tanke på att en formell revision av UNCLOS
verkar politiskt ogenomförbar, föreslår ILC att denna fixering kan uppnås genom en omtolkning av befintliga UNCLOS-bestämmelser, särskilt artikel 5.
Jag beskriver försöket till en sådan lösning som ILC:s tolkningsansats.

Tolkningen av traktater styrs av artiklarna 31-33 i Wienkonventionen om
traktaträtten (VCLT). Dessa artiklar bildar ett sammanhängande system av
regler samtidigt som de tillåter en viss flexibilitet för tolkaren att anpassa tolkningen till relevanta omständigheter. Emellertid kan ILC:s tolkningsansats
potentiellt riskera att utsträcka den tänkta meningen av fördragsvillkoren till
en grad som kan gå utöver de avsedda marginalerna för flexibilitet som fastställs i VCLT-artiklarna. Detta kan ha negativa konsekvenser för fördragstolkning i stort, såväl som för statusen och förutsägbarheten hos UNCLOS.

Jag menar att en lösning kan hittas i den potentiella hänvisningen till separata
rättsliga regimer som uppstår inom området, genom en dynamisk tillämpning
av artikel 31(3)(c) VCLT. Oavsett om det sker genom ett fördrag eller som
en internationell sedvanerättsregel, måste en sådan regim, för att påverka tolkningen av UNCLOS, vara gällande för alla fördragets parter, vilket kan uppnås genom dess acceptans som en objektiv regim med effekter på tredje part.
Men även om det finns indikationer mot att en sedvanerättslig regel håller på
att växa fram bland vissa stater, är den nuvarande statspraktiken och tillhörande opinio juris fortfarande otillräckliga för att etablera den som en rättsregel. Tills en sedvanerättslig norm eller annan relevant internationell rättsregel
identifieras och allmänt accepteras bland fördragets parter, bör påståendet om
tillåtligheten av baslinjefixering genom en expansiv tolkning av UNCLOS
ses som ett proaktivt angreppssätt från ILC.


Svårigheterna att snabbt nå en lösning på problemet med havsnivåhöjningen
bör inte hindra ansträngningarna att skydda de utsatta staternas rättigheter.
Lösningar bör dock uppfylla kraven för regleringen av traktatstolkningen. Genom internationella ansträngningar att erkänna rättigheterna för utsatta stater
att behålla befintliga rättigheter och skyldigheter, med fördel genom framväxten av ny sedvanerätt eller traktaträtt, kan praktiska lösningar presenteras
som är i linje med detta rättsliga ramverk. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
Holst, Johan LU
supervisor
organization
course
JURM02 20241
year
type
H3 - Professional qualifications (4 Years - )
subject
keywords
public international law, law of the sea, United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, treaty interpretation, Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, baselines
language
English
id
9153033
date added to LUP
2024-06-13 15:16:59
date last changed
2024-06-13 15:16:59
@misc{9153033,
  abstract     = {{As a consequence of climate change, global sea-level rise is expected to increase significantly in the coming years, posing potentially catastrophic threats to coastal states. This raises critical questions in international law, including that of the potential loss of maritime zones and associated entitlements for coastal states. Under the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), the seaward limits of maritime zones and the associated maritime entitlements are measured from the baseline which, according to Article 5 of the Convention, is defined as the low-water line along the coast.

Under the current interpretation of the law of the sea, baselines as defined in UNCLOS are ambulatory, shifting with the accretion and recession of the actual coastline. This means that land inundation caused by sea-level rise would require the outer limits of maritime zones to move landwards, resulting in the loss of associated rights. To protect the existing rights of coastal states, the ILC has suggested preserving current maritime entitlements through the fixation of baselines. Given that a formal revision of UNCLOS appears politically unfeasible, the ILC suggests that this fixation could be achieved through a reinterpretation of existing UNCLOS provisions, particularly Article 5. I describe the attempt towards such a solution the interpretative approach of the ILC.

The process of treaty interpretation is governed by Articles 31-33 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (VCLT). These articles form a coherent system of rules while at the same time allowing a degree of flexibility for the interpreter to adapt the interpretation to relevant circumstances. However, the interpretative approach of the ILC could potentially risk stretching the meaning of the treaty terms to a degree which might go beyond the intended margins of flexibility laid out in the VCLT articles. This could have negative implications for the practice of treaty interpretation as well as for the status and predictability of UNCLOS.

I argue however that a solution might be found in the potential reference to separate legal regimes emerging in the area, through a dynamic application of Article 31(3)(c) VCLT. Whether by means of a treaty or as a rule of customary international law, for such a regime to impact the interpretation of UNCLOS, it would need to be applicable to all treaty parties, which could be achieved by its acceptance as an objective regime with effects on third parties. However, while an embryonic customary rule of law is emerging among some states, the current state practice and accompanying opinio juris are still insufficient to establish it as a rule of law. Until a customary law norm or other relevant rule of international law is identified and widely accepted among the treaty parties, alleging the permissibility of baseline fixation through an expansive interpretation of UNCLOS should be regarded as a proactive approach of the ILC.

The difficulties in reaching a swift solution to the issue of sea-level rise should not hinder efforts to protect the rights of vulnerable states. Solutions should however meet the requirements regulating the process of treaty interpretation. Through international efforts to recognise the rights for vulnerable states to maintain existing rights and obligations, preferably though the emergence of customary or treaty law, practical solutions can be presented which are in line with this legal framework.}},
  author       = {{Holst, Johan}},
  language     = {{eng}},
  note         = {{Student Paper}},
  title        = {{Imaginary Coastlines: Analysing Baseline Fixation under the Law of the Sea}},
  year         = {{2024}},
}