A Proposal for Accommodating the Interests of Archipelagic and Maritime States

Abstract

Traditional law of the sea terminology, customary law, and codified international law were designed to deal with continental masses, not with groups of mid-ocean islands. Therefore, should archipelagic states endeavor to secure the same access to minerals, fisheries and continental shelf areas which is currently enjoyed by mainland nations, it is unlikely that the application of traditional concepts will produce results which can be justified to the international community as a whole.

Under general principles of international law, the imposition of unilateral restrictions on the freedom of the high seas is permitted only upon the satisfaction of two tests. First, the state action must be reasonably adapted to a lawful primary purpose. Second, the action must not interfere with freedom of navigation, access to ocean resources or any other freedom enumerated in Article 2 of the 1958 Geneva Convention on the High Seas. Measured against these criteria, an archipelagic state's unilateral adoption of the "one-unit" principle in effect imposes a blockade and could provoke resistance, forcible measures and possible war.

This article will discuss the problem of delimiting the territorial waters and economic resource zones of mid-ocean archipelagos and archipelagic states. By focusing on the necessity for accommodating the conflicting and overlapping interests of the international community, the article will suggest that misguiding traditional legal concepts be largely abandoned in favor of a functional resolution. It is submitted that traditional law of the sea terminology lacks the flexibility necessary to cope with the conflicting interests of archipelagic and maritime states.

Keywords: Geneva Convention on the High Seas, archipelagic state, international law, law of the sea, islands, mainland, fisheries, continental shelf, archipelagic states, maritime states, navigation, archipelago