THE LAW OF THE SEA AND EMERGING ISSUES-º£Ñó·¨Ç°ÑØ-ÐÂÒéÌâÓëÐÂÌôÕ½-Ó¢ÎÄ

THE LAW OF THE SEA AND EMERGING ISSUES-º£Ñó·¨Ç°ÑØ-ÐÂÒéÌâÓëÐÂÌôÕ½-Ó¢ÎÄ ½ÚÑ¡

¡¡¡¡¡¶º£Ñó·¨Ç°ÑØ£ºÐÂÒéÌâÓëÐÂÌôÕ½£¨Ó¢Îİ棩¡·£º¡¡¡¡1. IntroductionClimate change is one of the key challenges for mankind in the coming years. Despite the views of some poMcians,it is clear that the average temperature in our world is increasing and that the cause of that increase is in large part due to human activity. The impact of climate change will be particularly felt in the oceans,so what are the implications for the intemational law of the sea?¡¡¡¡If one looks at the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea £¨UNCLOS£© ,the so-called " constitution of the oceans" ,which govems a large proportion of the activit:ies in the oceans,one would get the impression that geography is stable,that the physical world never changes. This is not so:geographers will say that the world is always in a state of change,even if that is not immediately apparent to non-specialists like me. But there is no doubt that the situation will be exacerbated by climate change. Most obviously,sea levels will rise,but climate change willlead to more extreme weather patterns,including more frequent storms and stronger waves; already the erosion of the coast in parts of southem England has been attributed to dus effect. So,how will the intemational law of the sea and especially UNCLOS be affected? Some impacts may develop widun a few years,whereas others may take decades to become apparent¡¡¡¡2. UNCLOS¡¡¡¡Most dramatically, some land features,which are currently inhabited, may become urunhabitable. Under Article 121 £¨ 3£© of UNCLOS," rocks w'nich cannot sustain human habitation or economic life of their own" are not entided to an exclusive economic zone or to a continental shelf: But Article 121 does not provide for a situation where a feature which can,at the moment,sustain human habitation or economic life,subsequently becomes uninhabitable,perhaps because of rising sea levels,which nught flood the only agricultural land or contaminate the fresh water supply,or because of erosion,for example of the only safe landing for boats. Is the coastal State then obliged to withdraw its claims to an exclusive economic zone and a continental shelf ? There is no doubt that,having made such claims,States will be most reluctant to resile fiom them,and indeed Judge Jesus has argued that "a substantial rise in sea level,whatever the cause,should not entail the loss of States' ocean space and their rights over maritime resources,already recognized by the 1982 Convention and by the community of¡¡¡¡nations". Whilst one must of course sympathise with any State which is significantly affected by sea level rise,there must come a point where the geographical reality ofa situation becomes so divorced from the rustorical claims made by a coastal State that the latter will have to reconsider those claims. This is a theme wluch will be retumed to elsewhere in this paper.¡¡¡¡More generally,throughout UNCLOS a key criterion as to whether an activity is or is not pemussible is in what maritime zone it is taking place,and ultimately nearly all of these maritime zones are m,easured from the baselines established by coastal States. Under Article 5 of UNCLOS, " the normal baseline"is¡¡¡¡"the low-water line". There seems nothing in the travaux preparatoires of UNCLOS to suggest that the low-water Jine can change. Nevertheless,it is usually accepted that " the normal baseline is ambulatory, moving seaward to reflect changes to the coast caused by accretion,land rise,and the construction of human-made structures associated with harbour systems,coastal protection and land reclamation projects,and also landward to refiect changes caused by erosion and sea level rise" 2 Thus if,because of climate change,sea levels rise,the low-water line and therefore the baseline should move in a landward direction.¡¡¡¡¡­¡­