12Н.Г. Присекина , Р.И. Дремлюга
10. Tokyo Declaration on Japan-Russia Relations, New Edition of the Joint Compendium of Documents on the History of Territorial Issue between Japan and Russia. Available at: http://www.mofa.go.jp/region/europe/russia/ territo-ry/edition01/tokyo.html (accessed 5 June 2015). (In Russian).
11. Treaty for Exchange of Sakhalin for the Kurile Islands (1875) (St. Petersburg Treaty). Joint Compendium of Documents on the History of Territorial Issue between Japan and Russia. Available at: http://www.mofa.go.jp/region/ europe/russia/territory/edition92/period2.html (accessed 5 June 2015). (In Russian).
12. Treaty of Commerce, Navigation and Delimitation between Japan and Russia (1855) (Treaty of Shimoda). Joint Compendium of Documents on the History of Territorial Issue between Japan and Russia. Available at: http://www.mofa.go.jp/region/europe/russia/territory/ (accessed 5 June 2015). (In Russian).
Присекина Наталья Геннадьевна, кандидат юридических наук, доцент кафедры международного публичного и частного права Дальневосточного федерального университета, заместитель директора Юридической школы Дальневосточного федерального университета, г. Владивосток, Россия. E-mail: otdel_nauka@mail.ru
Дремлюга Роман Игоревич, кандидат юридических наук, заместитель директора Юридической школы Дальневосточного федерального университета, г. Владивосток, Россия. E-mail: dreamluck@yandex.ru
КОНВЕНЦИЯ ООН ПО МОРСКОМУ ПРАВУ В ЦЕНТРЕ ВНИМАНИЯ МЕЖДУНАРОДНЫХ ТЕРРИТОРИАЛЬНЫХ СПОРОВ В ЮЖНО-КИТАЙСКОМ МОРЕ: ПРОБЕЛЫ И ПУТИ ВЫХОДА
По мнению авторов, некоторые положения и определения Конвенции ООН по морскому праву 1982 г. имеют серьезные пробелы, которые ведут к различным толкованиям и недоразумениям в разных странах. Из-за условных пробелов все участники споров о Южно-Китайском море имеют свое собственное мнение в отношении интерпретации положений Конвенции и уверены, что они следуют международному праву. Авторы считают, что некоторые положения Конвенции должны быть пересмотрены для того, чтобы разрешить имеющиеся споры и предотвратить дальнейшие дискуссии. Эти положения включают, но не ограничиваются существующим отличием между островом и скалой, а также системой прямых исходных линий, которая позволяет разграничить большие морские районы вдали от
побережья. Одним из первых важных моментов является различие между скалой и островом. Вторая проблема - это концепция прямых исходных линий.
Natalia G. Prisekina, Candidate of Science (Law), Associate Professor, Department of International Public and Private Law, Far Eastern Federal University, Deputy Director of the FEFU School of Law, Vladivostok, Russia. E-mail: otdel_nauka@mail.ru
Roman I. Dremliuga, Candidate of Science (Law), Depury Director of FEFU School of Law, Vladivostok, Russia. E-mail: dreamluck@yandex.ru
UNCLOS IN THE SPOTLIGHT OF INTERNATIONAL TERRITORIAL DISPUTES IN THE SOUTH CHINA SEA1: GAPS AND WAYS OUT
In the authors' opinions, some provisions and definitions of the United Nation Convention on the Law of the Sea 1982 (UNCLOS) have serious gaps that lead to various interpretations and misunderstandings by countries. Due to provisional gaps, all parties of the South China Sea Disputes have their own opinions on the UNCLOS interpretations and are confident that they follow International law. Authors consider that certain provisions of UNCLOS should be revised in order to resolve actual disputes and prevent further debates. These provisions include but are not limited to the current distinction between an island and a rock and the strait baseline conception that permits to delineate big sea areas far from the coast. The first issue of importance is the current distinction between an island and a rock. Term "island" is not transparently defined but produces rights on big maritime areas with different regimes and huge resources. The second problem is the strait baseline conception that permits to delineate big sea areas far from the coast. Some South China Sea states interpret straight baselines proposals in terms of their own economic and political benefit but assume that they still act according to major principals of International law of the sea.
It has been over 20 years since the implementation of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (hereinafter - UNCLOS). Elaboration of this treaty was a significant step to the settlement of numerous international territorial disputes concerning the law of the sea around the world. However, some disputes are still in progress. In the authors' opinions, some provisions and defini-
1 On Russian maps the term "South China Sea" is used.
H.r. npwceKMHa, P.M. flpeiw^rora
tions of UNCLOS have serious gaps that lead to various interpretations and misunderstandings by countries.
The South China Sea represents a critical source of seaborne energy for China, which receives nearly 90 percent of overseas-sourced oil (as compared to roughly 75 percent for Japan) and many trading goods of South East countries through this major body of water [1, p.53]. Due to provisional gaps, all parties of the South China Sea Disputes (Brunei, China, Malaysia, the Philippines, and Vietnam) have their own opinions on the UNCLOS interpretations and are confident that they follow International law. We consider that certain provisions of UNCLOS should be revised in order to resolve actual disputes and prevent further debates.
The first issue of importance is the current distinction between an island and a rock. This issue is significant since according to UNCLOS Article 121 [2], the territorial sea, the contiguous zone, the exclusive economic zone, and the continental shelf of an island are determined in accordance with the provisions of this Convention applicable to other land territory. However, Rocks that cannot sustain human habitation or economic life of their own shall have no exclusive economic zone or continental shelf. This applies to Russia, which has many islands in the Arctic that probably are not so sustainable for habitation or economic life such as small rocks and atolls in the Pacific Ocean. Also, it should be noted that modern technologies could provide possibilities for creation of appropriate conditions for habitation and economic activity everywhere. UNCLOS relies on criteria of sustainability for habitation or economic life but doesn't describe this definition.
In the practice of sea disputes, some countries use the term "island" in a very broad sense. For instance, Japan, in case of "Okinotori-shima", and China uses the term "qundao" (archipelagoes or a group of islands in Chinese) to name all features. This definition even includes some islands permanently under water, such as Macclesfield Bank situated in the South China Sea in the four archipelagos. The Spratly Islands in Chinese are called Nansha Archipelago. The definition of an "island" in the UNCLOS leaves room for further debate and discussion.
Specifically, it leads to the situation that all of claimants in the South China Sea, except Brunei, attempting to establish their sovereignty claims by occupying certain islands and reefs. Claimants construct airstrips, research stations, platforms, tourist attractions, and military facilities on them to show that they have a real island that produces an exclusive economic zone and continental shelf. For instance, the largest islands are occupied by Vietnam and the Philippines. Vietnam occupies 21 features, the Philippines - 9, China - 7, and Malaysia - 5. All of those countries claim that they have rights to delimitate an exclusive economic zone and continental shelf around a small piece of land that did not originally sustain human habitation.
For nearly 30 years after UNCLOS was negotiated, International law provided little guidance on how to interpret this clause. However, in 2009, the United Nations International Court of Justice examined the case of sea delimitation
between Ukraine and Romania. The most significant part of this dispute was the determination of the legal nature of Snake Island, a rocky offshore island in the Black Sea, which belongs to Ukraine. It is slightly larger than 0.2 square kilometers and is morethan 40 meters above sea level at its highest point. Snake Island has a lighthouse, but little fresh water or vegetation. A small number of military and scientific personnel are stationed there (much like the Spratly Islands in the South China Sea), it requires regular resupply of food, water and other necessities from the mainland in order to sustain personnel on Snake Island. The UN International Court of Justice ruled that Snake Island did not generate an exclusive economic zone or a continental shelf and, therefore, did not significantly alter the maritime boundary between the two countries.
Despite that ruling, some countries try to generate an exclusive economic zone and continental shelf by using small rocks. Since decisions of the UN International Court of Justice do not create rules and charge obligations, only to the parties of a particular dispute. In addition, there is no obligation to submit any dispute to the UN International Court of Justice and most of politically strong countries choose different ways. Some authors estimate also are that the majority of the 50 small land areas in the South China Sea are extremely small that they have to be arranged as rocks which cannot sustain human habitation or economic life of their own [3, p. 9]. It is doubtful whether all the islands in the South China Sea could have their own EEZ but Chinese practice in this respect shows an opposite trend [4, p. 50]. Moreover, some authors proclaimed that China based its claims on records of the 15th century and by reference to the International law of that era that is said to have not required occupation to establish and retain national claims [5, p. 71]. But most of authors take into consideration that Vietnam and the Philippines, meanwhile, make claims based on more recent use.
The second problem is the strait baseline conception that permits to delineate big sea areas far from the coast. In early 1973, Arvid Pardo said that, unfortunately, a number of key terms in the text of the Convention have not been properly defined and as a result of that vagueness, a large majority of coastal states had been, by elastic interpretations of UNCLOS established their baselines in such a way as to give them the maximum area of territorial sea and internal water [6, p. 270]. Some authors underline that baselines not only produce the beginning point for maritime zones extending outward, but also delimit and define the juridical character of the waters landward of the baselines [7, p. 634].
In accordance with Article 7 of UNCLOSin localities where the coastline is deeply indented and cut into, or if there is a fringe of islands along the coast in its immediate vicinity, the method of straight baselines joining appropriate points may be employed in drawing the baseline from which the breadth of the territorial sea is measured. However, how many nautical miles is "immediate vicinity"?
We have two famous examples of using strait baselines: the Norwegian Fjords and the Canadian Northwest Passage where tremendous territory is claimed as internal water because it lays within strait baselines.
Н.Г. Присекина, Р.И. Дремлюга
It should be noted that the straight baseline method allows a country with offshore islands and/or very rough coastlines to reckon its territorial seas from straight lines drawn from a point on the coast to the islands, or from island to island. After connecting the points, the water behind the lines is recognized as internal water, while waters away from the line and towards open waters are considered territorial seas. Grounds for this concept are created by the Fisheries Case (United Kingdom vs. Norway) of 1951, it is important because it accepted the method of using straight baselines for delimitation.
Vietnam used that ruling in its 1982 Statement on the Territorial Sea Baseline, to established straight baselines from which its territorial sea was to be measured. However, Vietnam's system of straight baselines was strongly protested by other countries on the basis that Vietnam did not meet the criteria set forth by the Article 7 of UNCLOS.
China's mainland baselines are mostly expressed in terms of its coastal geography. However, in several offshore locations, China's baselines enclose more than 2,500 square nautical miles of ocean space, primarily in the East China Sea, from full international use. In the South China Sea, China has also drawn straight baselines around the Paracel Islands.
Following this logic obliviously, that some terms of straight baseline provisions allow states to interpret them in a different way. Such a state of affairs creates an area for numerous disputes not only in the South China Sea. For example, articles of UNCLOS that concern international straits also produce confrontation. Countries delimitate big maritime areas because the modern law of the sea allows it. Opinion exists that the South China Sea is located in a part of the world where normal baselines are not that normal, but are rather becoming something of an exception [8].
In conclusion, it should be noted that UNCLOS distinctly helps to settle many disputes in the world, possiblyeven put a stop to some wars. However, everything should develop, even such useful convention as UNCLOS is not the Bible and not a dogma and it is time to revise some provisions and terms of UNCLOS, especially those that produce international conflicts.
СПИСОК ЛИТЕРАТУРЫ
1. Maritime Security in the South China Sea: Regional Implications and International Cooperation / ed. by Wu Shicun, Zou Keyuan. - Aldershot, United Kingdom : Ashgate Publishing Limited, 2009. - 284 p.
2. United Nations Convention on the Law Of the Sea 1982 [Электронный ресурс] // Official UN site. - Режим доступа: http://www.un.org/Depts/los/con vention_agreements/texts/unclos/closindx.htm.
3. Lynn Kuok. Overcoming the Impasse in the South China Sea. Jointly Defining EEZ Claims // East Asia Policy. - Washington : The Brookings Institution. Center For East Asia Policy Studies, December 2014. - Paper 4.
4. Zou Keyuan. Law of the Sea in East Asia: issues and prospects. - London ; New York : Routledge, 2005. - 256 p.
5. Indian Ocean Rising: Maritime Security And Policy Challenges / ed. by
D. Michel. -Washington D.C. : Stimson, 2012. - 136 p.
6. Westerman, G. S. Straight Baselines in International Law: A Call for Reconsideration, 82. Am. Soc'y Int'l L. Proc. 260. 1988 [Электронный ресурс]. -Режим доступа: http://digitalcommons.pace.edu/lawfaculty/230/.
7. David, D. C. When Law Makes Climate Change Worse: Rethinking the Law of Baselines in Light of a Rising Sea Level, 17. Ecology L.Q. 621. 1990. [Электронный ресурс]. - Режим доступа: http://scholarship.law.berke ley.edu/facpubs/261.
8. Franckx, E. Straight Baselines Around Insular Formations Not Constituting An Archipelagic State. Third International Workshop, November 2011 /
E. Franckx, M. Benata [Электронный ресурс]. - Режим доступа: http://www.sudestasiatico.com/public/erik-franckx-marco-benatar.pdf.
REFERENCES
1. Wu Shicun, Zou Keyuan, eds. Maritime Security in the South China Sea: Regional Implications and International Cooperation. Aldershot, United Kingdom: Ashgate Publishing Limited, 2009. 284 p.
2. United Nations Convention on the Law Of the Sea 1982. Official UN site. Available at: http://www.un.org/Depts/los/convention_agreements/texts/unclos /closindx.htm (accessed 23 May 2015).
3. Lynn Kuok. Overcoming the Impasse in the South China Sea. Jointly Defining EEZ Claims. East Asia Policy, The Brookings Institution: Center For East Asia Policy Studies. Washington, December 2014, Paper 4.
4. Zou Keyuan. Law of the Sea in East Asia: issues and prospects. London; New York: Routledge, 2005. 256 p.
5. Michel D., ed. Indian Ocean Rising: Maritime Security And Policy Challenges. Washington, D.C.: Stimson, 2012. 136 p.
6. Westerman G.S. Straight Baselines in International Law: A Call for Reconsideration, 82. Am. Soc'y Int'l L. Proc. 260. 1988. Available at: http://digitalcommons.pace.edu/lawfaculty/230/(accessed 23 May 2015).
7. David D.C. When Law Makes Climate Change Worse: Rethinking the Law of Baselines in Light of a Rising Sea Level, 17. Ecology L.Q. 621. 1990. Available at: http://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/facpubs/261(accessed 23 May 2015).
8. Franckx E., Benata M. Straight Baselines Around Insular Formations Not Constituting An Archipelagic State. Third International Workshop, November 2011. Available at: http://www.sudestasiatico.com/public/erik-franckx-marco-benatar.pdf (accessed 23 May 2015).
