2002
DOI: 10.1080/00908320290054828
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Southern Ocean Boundaries and Maritime Claims: Another Antarctic Challenge for the Law of the Sea?

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
6
0

Year Published

2010
2010
2019
2019

Publication Types

Select...
5
3

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 12 publications
(6 citation statements)
references
References 15 publications
0
6
0
Order By: Relevance
“…However, it is Australia's firm position that the proclamation of an outer continental shelf in the Southern Ocean off HIMI and Macquarie Island does not constitute a 'new claim' or 'the enlargement of an existing claim' contrary to the Antarctic Treaty. 24 This is what is known as the 'outside-inside' issue, where rights under the Law of the Sea extend into the Antarctic Treaty Area. 25 Australia's position in this respect is supported by the fact that the Commission provided largely supportive recommendations on Australia's outer continental shelf limits in relation to both HIMI and Macquarie Island, thereby confirming Australia's outer continental shelf in these areas.…”
Section: Southern Ocean Outer Continental Shelfmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…However, it is Australia's firm position that the proclamation of an outer continental shelf in the Southern Ocean off HIMI and Macquarie Island does not constitute a 'new claim' or 'the enlargement of an existing claim' contrary to the Antarctic Treaty. 24 This is what is known as the 'outside-inside' issue, where rights under the Law of the Sea extend into the Antarctic Treaty Area. 25 Australia's position in this respect is supported by the fact that the Commission provided largely supportive recommendations on Australia's outer continental shelf limits in relation to both HIMI and Macquarie Island, thereby confirming Australia's outer continental shelf in these areas.…”
Section: Southern Ocean Outer Continental Shelfmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Some states whose territorial claims precede the Antarctic Treaty (i.e. 'claimant states') have made qualified declarations extending their on-hold territorial claims to circumpolar waters (Kaye & Rothwell, 2002). However, the status of these claims remains untested and unenforced beyond the act of registration (Rothwell, 2002).…”
Section: Fishing Off Antarctica's Coastsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…On the other hand, it might be argued that an EEZ claim off Antarctica is not a new claim for the purposes of the treaty but merely updates an existing claim in accordance with modern international law. To date only France and Australia have formally claimed an EEZ off their Antarctic territories, although Chile claims to exercise rights in the maritime zone adjacent to its claim on the basis of its controversial Presential Sea doctrine (Kaye and Rothwell 2002;Vigni 2001). Similarly, the extension of the territorial sea from 3 nautical miles -which was broadly although not universally accepted in 1959 -to 12 nautical miles post UNCLOS could be interpreted either as an enlarged claim contrary to Article IV (2) of the Antarctic Treaty, or as an updated claim in accordance with the law of the sea.…”
Section: Box 243: Baselinesmentioning
confidence: 99%