Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-v9fdk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-17T13:31:30.746Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The extended continental shelves of sub-Antarctic Islands: implications for Antarctic governance

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 March 2010

Alan D. Hemmings  and
Tim Stephens
Alan D. Hemmings
Affiliation:
Gateway Antarctica Centre for Antarctic Studies and Research, University of Canterbury, Private Bag 4800, Christchurch 8020, New Zealand (ahe30184@bigpond.net.au)
Tim Stephens
Affiliation:
Faculty of Law, University of Sydney, NSW 2006, Australia (t.stephens@usyd.edu.au)
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article considers the legal and policy issues surrounding the establishment of continental shelves beyond 200 nautical miles (nm) from sub-Antarctic islands. Under the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) a coastal state may establish a continental shelf that extends seawards beyond 200 nm where the continental shelf continues, normally to a total distance of no more than 350 nm. To establish such an extended continental shelf (ECS) a coastal state must file a submission of delineation data with the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf (CLCS), a technical body established by UNCLOS.

The rights of coastal states present particular difficulties in the Antarctic Treaty area (ATA), due to the general non-recognition of the seven territorial claims and the provisions of article IV of the Antarctic Treaty. Accordingly, Antarctic claimant states are generally adopting a restrained approach to the issue of ECS as appertaining to claimed territories in Antarctica in their submissions to the CLCS. These states appear to recognise that they cannot secure the normal prerogatives of a coastal state from territorial sea baselines within the ATA, at least for the duration of the present Antarctic Treaty system (ATS). A different approach is being taken with respect of sub-Antarctic islands lying north of the ATA. Sovereignty over sub-Antarctic territory north of the ATA is, with the exception of South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands, not contested. Accordingly, rights in relation to any continental shelf attaching to sub-Antarctic islands may be realised, apparently without challenging the Antarctic modus vivendi.

However, the ECS of several sub-Antarctic islands penetrate the ATA. In 2008, the CLCS largely endorsed the 2004 Australian submission that included data on ECS from Australia's sub-Antarctic islands of Macquarie Island and the Heard and McDonald group. The ECS from both groups penetrates south of 60°S into the ATA, in the case of Heard and McDonald covering a huge area. Although the wider dispute regarding sovereignty between the United Kingdom and Argentina adds complexity to the case, the South Sandwich Islands are sufficiently close to the ATA that their continental shelf also penetrates the area. In the event that the CLCS were ever able to make a recommendation on a submission of data relating to the South Sandwich Islands (something that could only occur with the consent of Argentina and the United Kingdom) the result would be a situation similar to that pertaining to the Australian sub-Antarctic islands.

The consequence of these developments is that rights to seabed areas within the ATA have been assigned to individual states. On the face of it, this appears to be in conflict with the norm of collective responsibility that was established by the Antarctic Treaty 50 years ago precisely to constrain sovereignty issues in the region. What is suggested by this practice is a difference in the attitude of Antarctic Treaty Consultative Parties (ATCPs) to rights generated from territory within the ATA and rights generated from external territory. Nonetheless, there may be significant implications flowing from the latter for resource issues within the ATA. Minerals exploitation on sub-Antarctic extended continental shelf within the ATA is precluded in the near-term because of cost, the formal prohibition under article 7 of the 1991 Protocol on Environmental Protection to the Antarctic Treaty, and the fact that all sub-Antarctic coastal states are ATCPs. However the situation in regard to other resource activities is less clear. Bioprospecting could proceed subject to coastal state approval pursuant to the provisions of UNCLOS relating to marine scientific research, and there is no mandatory regulation under the ATS. The possibility that a coastal state may seek to realise rights on the ECS in relation to genetic resources may complicate collective ATS approaches and pose wider geopolitical challenges. In the longer term, the fact that some Antarctic states are presently seeking to secure rights that are essentially about ensuring their preclusive access to resources may have significant implications for strategic interests in the greater Antarctic region.

Type
Research Article
Information
Polar Record , Volume 46 , Issue 4 , October 2010 , pp. 312 - 327
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2010

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Alter, K.J., and Meunier, S.. 2009. The politics of international regime complexity. Perspectives on Politics 7: 13–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Argentina. 2009. UNCLOS submission. Outer limit of the continental shelf: Argentine submission: executive summary. New York: Argentine Permanent Mission to the United Nations. URL: http://www.un.org/Depts/los/clcs_new/submissions_files/arg25_09/arg2009e_summary_eng.pdf. (submitted under cover of diplomatic note N.U. 139/2009/600).Google Scholar
Australia. 1991. Fisheries Management Act 1991. Act no. 162 of 1991 as amended. Canberra. URL: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/fma1991193.txt/cgi-bin/download.cgi/download/au/legis/cth/consol_act/fma1991193.rtfGoogle Scholar
Australia. 2004. UNCLOS submission. Continental shelf submission of Australia: executive summary. Submission to the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf on the outer limits of Australia's continental shelf extending beyond 200 nautical miles from the territorial sea baseline. Canberra. URL: http://www.un.org/depts/los/clcs_new/submissions_files/aus04/Documents/aus_doc_es_web_delivery.pdf.Google Scholar
Baird, R. 2004. Can Australia assert an extended continental shelf off the Australian Antarctic Territory consistent with the law of the sea and within the constraints of the Antarctic Treaty? Maritime Studies 138: 1–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blay, S., and Green, J.. 1994. The practicalities of domestic legislation to prohibit mining activity in Antarctica: a comment on the Australian perspective. Polar Record 30 (172): 23–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
CCAMLR (Convention on the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources). 1982. Australian Treaty Series 9. URL: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/other/dfat/treaties/1982/9.htmlGoogle Scholar
CCAMLR (Convention on the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources) Commission. 2008. Conservation measure 22–05 (2008). Restrictions on the use of bottom trawling gear in high-seas areas of the convention area. Hobart: CCAMLR (schedule of conservation measures in force 2008/09 season: 65). URL: http://www.ccamlr.org/pu/e/e_pubs/cm/08-09/all.pdf.Google Scholar
Chile. 2009. UNCLOS submission. Preliminary information indicative of the outer limits of the continental shelf and description of the status of preparation and intended date of making a submission to the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf. URL: http://www.un.org/Depts/los/clcs_new/submissions_files/preliminary/chl2009preli-minaryinformation.pdf.Google Scholar
Churchill, R.R. 1997. Falkland Islands–maritime jurisdiction and co-operative arrangements with Argentina. International and Comparative Law Quarterly 46: 463–477.Google Scholar
Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf (CLCS). 2008a. Summary of the recommendations of the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf in regard to the submission made by Australia on 15 November 2004. New York: CLCS URL: http://www.un.org/Depts/los/clcs_new/submissions_files/aus04/aus_summary_of_recommendations.pdf.Google Scholar
Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf (CLCS). 2008b. Rules of procedure of the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf. New York: CLCS (UN Doc CLCS/40/Rev.1 (2008)).Google Scholar
Drewry, D.J. 1987. The Antarctic physical environment. In: Triggs, G. (editor). The Antarctic Treaty regime: law, environment and resources. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press: 6–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fabra, A., and Gascón, V.. 2009. The Convention for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources (CCAMLR) and the ecosystem approach. International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law 23: 567–598.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
France. 2009. UNCLOS submission. The French continental shelf: partial submission to the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf in respect of the areas of the French Antilles and the Kergeulen Antilles (???): executive summary. New York: Permanent Mission of France to the United Nations. URL: http://www.un.org/Depts/los/clcs_new/submissions_files/fra09/fra_executivesummary_2009.pdf. (submitted under cover of diplomatic note HR/cl no. 69).Google Scholar
Freedman, L. 2007. The official history of the Falklands campaign, volume II: war and diplomacy. London: Routledge (2nd edition).Google Scholar
Green, J. 2001. Australian maritime boundaries: the Australian Antarctic Territory. Marine Policy 25: 1–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hemmings, A.D. 2006. Regime overlap in the Southern Ocean: the Case of southern blue fin tuna and CCSBT in the CCAMLR area. New Zealand Yearbook of International Law 3: 207–217.Google Scholar
Hemmings, A.D. 2008. Problems posed by attempts to apply a claimant's domestic legislation beyond its own nationals in Antarctica. Asia Pacific Journal of Environmental Law 11: 207–220.Google Scholar
Hemmings, A.D., and Rogan-Finnemore, M.. 2008. Access, obligations and benefits: regulating bioprospecting in the Antarctic. In: Jeffery, M.I., Firestone, J., and Bubna-Litic, K. (editors). Biodiversity conservation, law + livelihoods: bridging the north-south divide. Cambridge University Press (IUCN Academy of Environmental Law research studies): 529–552.Google Scholar
Hemmings, A.D., and Stephens, T.. 2009. Australia's extended continental shelf: what implications for Antarctica? Public Law Review 20: 9–16.Google Scholar
Hutchinson, D.R., and Rowland, R.W.. 2006. United States Geological Survey analysis of the Australian UNCLOS submission. US Geological Survey Open-File Report 2006–1073. Reston VA: US Geological Survey. URL: http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2006/1073/images/pdf/report.pdf.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
India. 2009. Note to the Secretary General of the United Nations. Note NY/PM/443/1/2009. New York: Permanent Mission of India to the United Nations. URL: http://www.un.org/Depts/los/clcs_new/submissions_files/arg25_09/ind_re_arg_2009.pdf.Google Scholar
International Court of Justice. 1995. East Timor case (Portugal v Australia). The Hague: International Court of Justice. Reports of the International Court of Justice 1995: 90.Google Scholar
International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea. 2000. Monte Confurco case (Seychelles v France). International Law Reports 125: 203.Google Scholar
International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea. 2003. Volga Case (Russia v Australia). International Legal Materials 42: 159–196.Google Scholar
Jabour, J. 2009. The Australian continental shelf: has Australia's high-latitude diplomacy paid off? Marine Policy 33: 429–431.Google Scholar
Kaye, S. 2001a. Australia's maritime boundaries. Wollongong: University of Wollongong Centre for Maritime Policy. 2nd edition.Google Scholar
Kaye, S.B. 2001b. The outer continental shelf in the Antarctic. In: Oude-Elferink, A.G., and Rothwell, D.R. (editors). The law of the sea and polar maritime delimitation and jurisdiction. The Hague, London: Kluwer Law International: 125–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaye, S.B., and Rothwell, D.R.. 2002. Southern ocean boundaries and maritime claims: another Antarctic challenge for the law of the sea? Ocean Development and International Law 33: 359–389.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McDorman, T.L. 2002. The role of the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf: a technical body in a political world. International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law 17: 301–324.Google Scholar
Molenaar, E.J. 2001. CCAMLR and southern ocean fisheries. International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law 16: 465–498.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
New Zealand. 1988. Final report of the fourth special Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting on Antarctic mineral resource activities. Wellington: Ministry of Foreign Affairs.Google Scholar
New Zealand. 2006. UNCLOS submission. Note from the permanent mission of New Zealand to the Secretary-General of the United Nations accompanying the lodgement of New Zealand's submission. New York: Permanent Mission of New Zealand to the United Nations URL: http://www.un.org/Depts/los/clcs_new/submissions_files/nzl06/nzl_doc_es_attachment.pdf.Google Scholar
New Zealand Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade. 2009. Treaties and international law: Convention on the Regulation of Antarctic Mineral Resource Activities; current status of the convention. Wellington: Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade. URL: http://www.mfat.govt.nz/Treaties-and-International-Law/01-Treaties-for-which-NZ-is-Depositary/0-Antarctic-Mineral-Resource.php.Google Scholar
Norway. 2009. UNCLOS submission. Continental shelf submission of Norway in respect of Bouvetøya and Dronning Maud Land: executive summary. New York: Permanent Mission of Norway to the United Nations. URL: http://www.un.org/Depts/los/clcs_new/submissions_files/nor30_09/nor2009_executivesummary.pdf. (submitted under cover of diplomatic note dated 4 May 2009).Google Scholar
Norway. 2006. UNCLOS submission. Continental shelf submission of Norway in respect of areas in the Arctic Ocean, the Barents Sea and the Norwegian Sea: executive summary. URL: http://www.un.org/Depts/los/clcs_new/submissions_files/nor06/nor_exec_sum.pdf.Google Scholar
Oude Elferink, A.G. 2002. The continental shelf of Antarctica: implications of the requirement to make a submission to the CLCS under article 76 of the LOS convention. International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law 17: 485–518.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oude Elferink, A.G. 2009. The establishment of outer limits of the continental shelf beyond 200 nautical miles by the coastal state: the possibilities of other states to have an impact on the process. International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law 24: 535–556.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oude Elferink, A.G., and Johnson, C.. 2006. Outer limits of the continental shelf and ‘disputed areas’: state practice concerning article 76(10) of the LOS Convention. International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law 21: 461–487.Google Scholar
Orsi, A.H., Whitworth, T., and Nowlin, W.D. Jr. 1995. On the meridional extent and fronts of the Antarctic circumpolar current. Deep-Sea Research Part I 42: 641–673.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oxman, B.H. 1986. Antarctica and the new law of the sea. Cornell International Law Journal 19: 211–247.Google Scholar
Quilty, P. 1993. Heard Island volcano is stirring. ANARE News 73: 18.Google Scholar
Rothwell, D.R. 1994. A maritime analysis of conflicting international law regimes in Antarctica and the southern ocean. Australian Year Book of International Law 15: 155–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rothwell, D.R. 2008. Issues and strategies for outer continental shelf claims. International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law 23: 185–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Russian Federation. 2009. Note to the Secretary General of the United Nations. Note 2282/N. New York: Permanent Mission of the Russian Federation to the United Nations. URL: http://www.un.org/Depts/los/clcs_new/submissions_files/arg25_09/rus_re_arg_2009e.pdf.Google Scholar
Serdy, A. 2005. Towards certainty of seabed jurisdiction beyond 200 nautical miles from the territorial sea baseline. Australia's submission to the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf. Ocean Development and International Law 36: 201–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
SPLOS (States Parties to the Law of the Sea Convention). 2001. Decision regarding the date of commencement of the ten-year period for making submissions to the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf set out in article 4 of annex II to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. New York: United Nations (UN Doc SPLOS/72).Google Scholar
SPLOS (States Parties to the Law of the Sea Convention). 2008. Decision regarding the workload of the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf and the ability of states, particularly developing states, to fulfil the requirements of article 4 of annex II to the convention, as well as the decision contained in SPLOS/72, paragraph (a)UN Doc SPLOS/183. New York: United Nations URL: http://daccess-ods.un.org/access.nsf/Get?Open&DS=SPLOS/183&Lang=E.Google Scholar
Stephens, T. 2008. The Japanese whaling case: implications for Australia and beyond. Asia Pacific Journal of Environmental Law 11: 137–146.Google Scholar
Suarez, S.V. 2008. The outer limits of the continental shelf: legal aspects of their establishment. Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Symonds, P., and Wilcox, J.B.. 1989 Australia's petroleum potential in areas beyond an exclusive economic zone. BMR Journal of Australian Geology and Geophysics 11: 11–36.Google Scholar
Symonds, P. 2001. Australia's southern ocean jurisdiction and opportunities under the law of the sea. In: Proceedings of the 2001 Invitation Symposium: Looking south – managing technology, opportunities and the global environment. Parkville: Australian Academy of Technological Sciences and Engineering: 161–180. URL: http://www.atse.org.au/index.php?sectionid=341.Google Scholar
United Kingdom. 1993. Proclamation (Maritime Zone) No.1 of 1993 (1). Stanley: Commissioner for South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands. URL: http://www.un.org/Depts/los/LEGISLATIONANDTREATIES/PDFFILES/GBR_1993_Proclamation1.pdfGoogle Scholar
United Kingdom. 1994. Antarctic Act 1994. HMSO. London. URL: http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1994/pdf/ukpga_19940015_en.pdfGoogle Scholar
United Kingdom. 2000. Fisheries (Conservation and Management) Ordinance 2000 (no: 2 of 2000). Stanley: Acting Commissioner, The Territories of South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands. URL: http://www.ukotfishing.info/fishing/regulation-legislation/south-georgia-the-south-sandwich-islands/Fisheries%20-Conservation%20-%20Management-%20Ordinance%202000.pdfGoogle Scholar
United Kingdom. 2005. Opinions of the Lords of Appeal for Judgement in the Cause: Regina vs Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Appellant) ex parte Quark Fishing Limited (conjoined appeals). 13 October 2005. United Kingdom House of Lords 57. URL: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200506/ldjudgmt/jd051013/quark.pdfGoogle Scholar
United Kingdom. 2008. UNCLOS submission. Note from the permanent mission of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to the Secretary-General of the United Nations accompanying the lodgement of the partial submission of the United Kingdom. New York: Permanent Mission of the United Kingdom to the United Nations. URL: http://www.un.org/Depts/los/clcs_new/submissions_files/gbr08/gbr_nv_9may2008.pdf.Google Scholar
United Kingdom. 2009a. Note to the Secretary General of the United Nations. Note 84/09. New York: United Kingdom Mission to the United Nations. New York: Permanent Mission of the United Kingdom to the United Nations. URL: http://www.un.org/Depts/los/clcs_new/submissions_files/arg25_09/clcs_45_2009_los_gbr.pdf.Google Scholar
United Kingdom. 2009b. UNCLOS submission. Submission to the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf in respect of the Falkland Islands, and of South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands: executive summary. FGS-DOC-001 05-05-2009. URL: http://www.un.org/Depts/los/clcs_new/submissions_files/gbr45_09/gbr2009fgs_executive%20summary.pd.Google Scholar
United Kingdom. 2009c. The Continental Shelf and the UN Process. London: Foreign and Commonwealth Office media release, 8 April 2009. URL: http://www.fco.gov.uk/en/news/latest-news/?view=News&id=16346920.Google Scholar
United Nations. 2001. The Law of the Sea. New York: Division for Ocean Affairs and the Law of the Sea, Office of Legal Affairs.Google Scholar
United States Department of State. 2000. National claims to maritime jurisdictions: limits to the seas. Washington D.C: US department of State (no 36, 8th revision).Google Scholar
United States. 2004. Note to the United Nations Secretary-General. New York: United States Permanent Mission to the United Nations. URL: http://www.un.org/depts/los/clcs_new/submissions_files/aus04/clcs_03_2004_los_usatext.pdf.Google Scholar
United States. 2009. Note to the United Nations Secretary-General. New York: United States Permanent Mission to the United Nations. URL: http://www.un.org/Depts/los/clcs_new/submissions_files/arg25_09/usa_re_arg_2009.pdf.Google Scholar
Vigni, P. 2001. Antarctic maritime claims: ‘frozen sovereignty’ and the law of the sea. In: Oude Elferink, A.G., and Rothwell, D.R. (editors). The law of the sea and polar maritime delimitation and jurisdiction. The Hague, London: Kluwer Law International: 85–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Young, O.R. 2009. Whither the Arctic? Conflict or cooperation in the circumpolar north. Polar Record 45 (232): 73–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar