Maritime Border Delimitation Maritime Boundaries

Maritime Border Delimitation Maritime boundaries have been debated, discussed and litigated for centuries. Despite this the majority of maritime boundaries are not delineated or set by any enforceable means as maritime boundaries lay in what is considered a no-man's land, within reason of coastal borders. For the most part nations have assumed the right of the waters within a few miles of their shores and any more than this was considered excessive.

The maritime space outside this flexible boundary is therefore a type of no-mans-land (which is not land at all) that rules do not penetrate, despite the desire by many to create enforceable rules and regulations regarding personal property use, abuse and resource allocation. The reason this lack of delineation is problematic relates mostly to issues of security and resource use. Yet, creating and then enforcing such borders can be a political nightmare, even if doing so is thought by some to be for the good of all.

Negotiations, where they occur, for the development of understood maritime use and control borders and boundaries are done between many entities, all of whom have different goals and ideologies regarding maritime use and rights. This work will discuss the various reasons why maritime border establishment is essential while simultaneously discussing the need to make such border negotiations incorporative of a multi-use and functional space that meets the needs of many, while still allowing for some exclusive rights of use and more importantly rights of security enforcement.

Maritime security, in the age of increased piracy, human trafficking, arms and other smuggling, terrorism and globalization in general will likely become one of the most important issues of the modern world. Resources Costal nations frequently seek maritime borders as a way in which to control offshore resources. These nations seek to reap the benefits of an ever broadening resource pool that includes fishing and living resources, recreation and tourism resources, maritime residency, treasure and historical exploration, trade resources, and energy and material resources.

The control associated with these resources is not simply the control needed to glean profit from resources but can also be in the name of enforceable environmental conservation. As more and more becomes known about all these areas of maritime utilization these issues will likely become more rather than less complicated and seeking enforceable maritime boundaries will also increase in importance. This is one of the primary reasons why enforceable maritime boundaries should be sought today, before the tug and pull of different uses increases even more.

Fishing Fishing is of course one of the primary resource issues with regard to maritime boundaries but fishing can take several forms. Fishing for individual subsistence is entirely different than commercial mass fishing of any given species. While in some cases individual subsistence fishing can do environmental harm, mass commercial fishing, for the most part is the greater threat to resources and is also a greater pull for secure maritime boundaries as such fishing when done with or without the environment in mind is mindful of economic growth and gain.

Commercial Commercial fishing in most regions of the world is highly controlled via means other than maritime border security, as quotas and season lengths determine the quantity of the particular species the haul is allowed to take. This is not to say, that controls are at all universal or that there is agreement between nations regarding this issue.

Maritime borders and enforcement of them would likely aide in the development of a more universal control of commercial fishing and help the industry and conservationists come to terms with the development of living resource management in the international arena. Individual Subsistence/Recreation Individual recreation and subsistence fishing in addition to recreational fishing are difficult to control but are controlled to some degree with fishing regulations and game tags, in much the same way as land-based living resources are controlled.

Maritime border enforcement has become a particularly tricky area of concern particularly for indigenous international subsidy fishing and particularly in areas where land masses and fishing grounds lie close to one another, such as in the case of Indonesia and Australia and in the majority of the Asian region and even Alaska and Russia.

It is in this area that negotiations must tread carefully, as what is noted by Indonesian subsistence fisherman, borders are not clear on water and confusion is a continual confrontation as enforcement of Australia's maritime borders has seriously challenged many of these individuals and to some degree taken away their only means of economic survival.

Recreation/Tourism/Residency The development of maritime borders may also curtail or create greater control over recreation, tourism and maritime residency, yet for the most part many involved in these industries and adventures are willing to support such means as long as it means greater personal and overall security and safety.

Commercial recreation, particularly the cruise industry but also smaller individual travelers have been highly affected by lack of security and safety on the seas and would welcome more control, even if this means accepting additional rules and regulations or even enduring more boarding by security professionals and the like to ensure that their physical and material well being be greater.

Treasure Seeking/Maritime Archeology Treasure seeking brings up a whole myriad of issues regarding maritime borders, as this area is not only highly contested from a border standpoint but also from a preservation and national historical ownership standpoint. As it stands today treasure seekers must follow the rules of current maritime borders and materials they collect are often subject to at the very least reporting but sometimes historically significant materials are also subject to confiscation.

There is also a great deal of concern about such issues with regard to original vs. place possession ownership of items of both material value and historical value. It is not the least bit uncommon for significant finds to face lengthy and costly legal battles to ensure the development of fair distribution of a find. More clear maritime borders would likely result in not only greater enforcement of historical preservation laws and issues but might also curtail some of the more difficult and lengthy legal battles.

Legal Legitimate Trade Legitimate and legal trade is probably the area with the most historical claim to maritime laws and enforcement of them. This is not to say that there have not been significant and historically litigious developments to create and enforce precedence over such laws and doings, but it is also clear that this area has the most to gain and possibly lose from maritime border delineation. Legitimate trade also has a lot to gain from security issues associated with maritime border delimitation.

One can see with very little effort that trade vessels are the most common on the high seas and often must travel the largest distances to receive and deliver international cargo. In doing so they interact more with regional and international maritime trade laws and have many of their own, via origin-based laws, international foreign laws and via the tradition of maritime trade laws and standards.

Many legitimate trade companies in fact are the strongest advocates for the development of maritime borders, even though they are clear on the fact that such borders might curtail or challenge trade more than it already is, again these stakeholders seek clarity and greater security. Energy and Material Resources One of the most hotly contested issues with regard to maritime border delineation is the development of offshore resources, other than living resources which have already been discussed.

Offshore drilling for oil and natural gas as well as alternative energy source production, offshore mineral acquisition and even someday contests over the water itself and a resource will likely continue to be an integral part of the issues of maritime borders.

The oil and natural gas industries are the loudest voices in this process but as alternative energy development continues and begins to recognize the manner in which offshore development can impact energy needs of the world they will also likely become advocates for maritime border delineation, as allocating and then placing movable and static resources for the purpose of obtaining energy is costly and needs to be done with forethought and reason.

In addition another advocate for the creation of reasonable marine border delineation, in the future may be advocates for the utilization of the water itself, as desalination technology increases in sophistication and use and as more and more population growth and urbanization creates the need for more fresh water these advocates will likely seek greater control and knowledge of the use of the sea.

Many would assume that most of these industries and technology stakeholders would seek deregulation, so they may obtain resources from wherever they might wish to, and yet the reality that most have been painfully led to is an internationally litigious society where cost of legal clarity becomes greater than it would be if they had, had specific and clear regulations of maritime borders and use rights from the very beginning.

"Even though the economic potential of seabed minerals attracted the interest of mineral and ocean technology firms, the huge investment required for commercial development could not be raised unless investors could secure both exclusive access to a deposit and international recognition of their titles to the minerals they recovered." Those investors even with peaked interest were and still are clearly reluctant to explore and excavate for resources if they will ultimately be told that such minerals do not belong to them, as a result of the region from which they came, or build semi-permanent offshore exploration and collection facilities if they risk being told later that they must move them as a result of where they are.

Security Likely the most essential issue at hand with regard to maritime border delineation is the maintenance and enforcement of security for seagoing vessels of all sizes and kinds as well as for the definitions of aggression. War and state aggression cannot be determined if such is based at sea and security forces of any kind have no value if they cannot enforce laws and borders within a certain set of agreed upon guidelines for appropriate action.

In this climate vessels and land are left at risk of all types of security breeches, including but not limited to state aggression or acts of war, terrorism, human trafficking, and likely most importantly acts of piracy. Current failure of the international community to come to common terms with regard to maritime borders leaves everyone at risk for the fallout of such issues as those listed above.

Another issue is safety at sea, with regard to who is ultimately responsible for acting in emergencies, to come to the aide of seagoing vessels in distress. War/State Aggression Determining what acts are to be considered official acts of war that require state response is difficult in a climate where maritime borders are non-delineated. If borders where more reasonably defined issues such as offshore nuclear testing and direct acts of aggression could be more easily defined, controlled and possibly resolved.

In a sense though this is the simplest aspect of security with regard to maritime borders, as other issues become much more cloudy and difficult but can benefit from greater delineation of maritime borders. Acts of war poorly defined simply lead to further confusion about response as well as determined acceptable action on the part of any entity.

With more clearly defined maritime borders there is a clear sense that it will be easier for nations and other entities to determine just what constitutes and act of war and how to respond, on a national and international level. Terrorism Terrorism clearly is an issue that is far more complicated than acts of state aggression as the enemy is far more elusive and difficult to control.

Yet, this is not to say that border delineation might have a positive effect on responsibility at the very least for acts of terrorism and the enforcement of laws and regulations regarding it. Currently it is difficult to determine just who is responsible for dealing with maritime security, with regard to terrorism or any real security threat to individuals or entities at sea.

Port security as well as offshore safety from piracy for terrorist purposes as well as direct acts of terrorism upon seagoing vessels are significant social and international threats and should be further bolstered by legal maritime border delineation. Arms/Drugs and other Illegitimate Trafficking/Human Trafficking Arms trafficking and other illegitimate trade support further illegal activities, of the terrorism nature and other natures as a they finance other actions.

Human trafficking is also an issue of social concern that needs address and would be logically aided by the delineation of maritime borders, as when individuals are at sea they are far more vulnerable than when they are ashore as enforcement of illegal acts against them beyond the act of trafficking them in the first place occur and authorities have little recourse to ensure their safety and possible safe return.

This will likely become are more important as security in legitimate transportation systems becomes fare better in response to international and domestic threats. When traffickers take to the sea their cargo is far less controllable and people and resources are much more at risk. Arms, goods and other black market supplies and goods trafficking is also significantly aided by the lack of national and international maritime delimitation.

Piracy Probably one of the most important issues with regard to maritime border delimitation and security is piracy, which has recently taken on a new face and even before the challenged economic state encroached on the world with regard to economic security this was so. McMillan points out that not only has piracy endured through the ages it is becoming far more common and sophisticated in this era; "…piracy has not only survived but is flourishing. In the year 2000 there were 469 attacks -- an increase of 56 per cent on 1999.

Going back over the decade the increase in actual and attempted pirate attacks is seen to be even more dramatic: that 469 compared with 107 in 1991. Preliminary figures for 2001 are for about 300 attacks but whether that is a trend will be shown this year." It must also be made very clear that piracy effects far more than those directly involved in it. Piracy severely impacts domestic economies, the international economy, and political stability. Disruption of the fishing industry harms local economies and leaves people more susceptible to further impoverishment.

As pirate attacks worsen, states that do not effectively combat pirates lose their international reputations -- companies are less likely to send their vessels both near these countries' territorial waters and into their ports, and the lack of government protection decreases prospects for foreign direct investment and trade, which in turn causes the economies of pirate-plagued nations to suffer. Furthermore, pirates often use the money they obtain to arm rebel groups in the region. Recent evidence shows that Somali pirates often operate in league with local warlords or clans.

In this way, the activity can become a direct threat to governmental stability. Piracy has been one of the greatest scourges of the earth and sea since individuals first took to sea for exploration and trade. Piracy affects everyone, all the way down the line from the corporation and individuals directly affected by it to international interests.

Though, there has been a recent upsurge in reporting on the issue of piracy which has brought it to the publics' attention less is known by the public about just how common and deadly such acts really are. Maritime border delineation would seriously assist security forces in the development of strategies and standards for how to respond to such acts and simply to some degree who to call when such acts occur.

Though security responsibility may be costly the impacts of not acting can be far more costly and could potentially continue to downgrade national interests in some already struggling nations. Clear maritime borders would also help such nations that struggle with piracy ask for help and receive it from others, who might be reluctant in situations where the borders are murky. Conclusion/International Negotiations It is very clear that many entities would benefit from delaminated maritime borders. Though it is also clear that negotiating these borders is challenging and multi-faceted.

Creating a system that would universalize procedures and allow a sort of template for such developments would be adventitious to many as issues of resource allocation and security continue to grow in import as the world becomes a smaller place in the confines of globalization. Litigation might be avoided, causing less liability for those who seek to build and create resource pools for both commercial and public use.

Individuals and states would have greater opportunity to clearly define responses to security issues of all kinds and in general the world would likely be a much safer place to live in and the seas much safer places for legitimate travel and trade. Litigation might be avoided and equity might be better established if maritime delimitation were more common and universal. We can no longer rely on the old standards of historical maritime tradition as the defining factors of seafaring use and abuse.

Sensitivity for all involved must drive standards and opportunity for individual case-based decisions must also be considered but overall maritime boundary delimitation will be good for all and seriously matters in the future of the world. Bibliography Albert, Mathias, and Lothar Brock. "1 What Keeps Westphalia Together? Normative Differentiation in the Modern System of States." Identities, Borders, Orders: Rethinking International Relations Theory. Ed. Mathias Albert, David Jacobson, and Yosef Lapid. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2001. 29-37. Anderson, Teresa.

"Protection to Port Side: The Port of New Orleans Has a Multipronged Approach to Security along Its 22 Miles of Waterfront." Security Management Aug. 2003: 46. Antrim, Caitlyn L. "Mineral Resources of Stateless Space: Lessons from the Deep Seabed." Journal of International Affairs 59.1 (2005): 55. Anwar, Dewi Fortuna. "Resource Issues and Ocean Governance in Asia Pacific: An Indonesian Perspective." Contemporary Southeast Asia 28.3 (2006): 466. Baland, Jean-Marie, and Jean-Philippe Platteau. Halting Degradation of Natural Resources: Is There a Role for Rural Communities? New York: Oxford University Press, 2000. Balint, Ruth.

Troubled Waters: Borders, Boundaries and Possession in the Timor Sea. Crows Nest, N.S.W.: Allen & Unwin, 2005. Bekker-Nielsen, Tonnes, ed. Ancient Fishing and Fish Processing in the Black Sea Region. Aarhus, Denmark: Aarhus University Press, 2006. Breton, Yvan, et al., eds. Coastal Resource Management in the Wider Caribbean: Resilience, Adaptation, and Community Diversity. Ottawa: International Development Research Centre, 2006. Buchanan, Allen, and Margaret Moore, eds. States, Nations, and Borders: The Ethics of Making Boundaries. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press, 2003. Charney, Jonathan I.

"Progress in International Maritime Boundary Delimitation Law." American Journal of International Law 88.2 (1994): 227-256. Christie, Donna R. "Living Marine Resources Management: A Proposal for Integration of United States Management Regimes." Environmental Law 34.1 (2004): 107. Dreyer, June Teufel. "Regional Security Issues." Journal of International Affairs 49.2 (1996): 391-411. "A Fifth of Our Energy Supply Lies off Our Coast, Says Trust." Western Mail (Cardiff, Wales) 1 Feb. 2006: 11. Frederick, James A.

"Thou Shall Not Covet Thy Neighbor's Water: A Look at the Journey Both Texas and the Middle East Must Embark upon to Solve the Kinks in Their Water Regulation." Houston Journal of International Law 29.2 (2007): 423. Harper, Lawrence A. The English Navigation Laws: A Seventeenth-Century Experiment in Social Engineering. New York: Columbia University Press, 1939. Harrald, John R. "Sea Trade and Security: An Assessment of the Post-9/11 Reaction." Journal of International Affairs 59.1 (2005): 157. Henrickson, David E. "Plotting a Course for Seaworthy Security." Security Management June 1994: 43. Hopper, Anna.

"Squashing the Skull and Bones: Reforming the International Anti-Piracy Regime." Harvard International Review 29.4 (2008): 28. Johnson, Edward. "Talking Across Frontiers: Building Communication Between Emergency Services." New Borders for a Changing Europe: Cross-Border Cooperation and Governance. Ed. James Anderson, Liam O'Dowd, and Thomas M.Wilson. London: F. Cass, 2003. 88-110. Kades, Erick. "Windfalls." Yale Law Journal 108.7 (1999): 1489. Keley, Lisa A. "The Power of the Sea: Using Ocean Energy to Meet Florida's Need for Power." Environmental Law 37.2 (2007): 489. Mancini, Francesco. "Maritime Power in a Flat World." Journal of International Affairs 59.1 (2005): 282. Mason, Michael.

"Citizenship Entitlements beyond Borders? Identifying Mechanisms of Access and Redress for Affected Publics in International Environmental Law." Global Governance 12.3 (2006): 283. Mcmillan, Stuart. "Piracy: An Old Menace Re-merges Stuart McMillan Comments on a Maritime Problem That Has Grown Steadily Worse in the Last Decade." New Zealand International Review 27.2 (2002): 21. Perkel, Walter. "Money Laundering and Terrorism: Informal Value Transfer Systems." American Criminal Law Review 41.1 (2003): 183. "[Pounds Sterling]250m Pirate Treasure 'Stolen' by Americans." The Mail on Sunday (London, England) 20 May 2007: 12. Roach, J. Ashley.

"Enhancing Maritime Security in the Straits of Malacca and Singapore." Journal of International Affairs 59.1 (2005): 97. "SEA OF GOLD; Explorers Find EUR400million Treasure Hoard on Shipwreck." The Mirror (London, England) 21 May 2007: 16. Walker, George K. "Information Warfare and Neutrality." Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law 33.5 (2000): 1079. Welsh, Dabney. "Access to Our Backyard Reserves: A Final Resolution of the Western Gulf of Mexico's Maritime Boundaries." Houston Journal of International Law 23.3 (2001): 609. Young, Adam J., and Mark J. Valencia. "Conflation of Piracy and Terrorism in Southeast Asia: Rectitude and Utility." Contemporary Southeast Asia 25.2 (2003): 269.

Allen Buchanan and Margaret Moore, eds., States, Nations, and Borders: The Ethics of Making Boundaries (Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press, 2003), 115. Mathias Albert, and Lothar Brock, "1 What Keeps Westphalia Together? Normative Differentiation in the Modern System of States," in Identities, Borders, Orders: Rethinking International Relations Theory ed. Mathias Albert, David Jacobson, and Yosef Lapid (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2001), 39. Ruth Balint, Troubled Waters: Borders, Boundaries and Possession in the Timor Sea (Crows Nest, N.S.W.: Allen & Unwin, 2005), 2.

Mathias Albert, and Lothar Brock, "1 What Keeps Westphalia Together? Normative Differentiation in the Modern System of States," in Identities, Borders, Orders: Rethinking International Relations Theory ed. Mathias Albert, David Jacobson, and.