You might have seen this map – which shows a disputed area of ocean claimed by both Kenya
and Somalia. But how can there be this much difference in what these two countries are
claiming? And isn’t there some kind of Convention that gives us conventions to avoid this sort
of thing?
In 2020, the International Court of Justice is set to hear a case brought by Somalia,
which relates to this dispute on the east coast of Africa.
Kenya claims the maritime boundary between the 2 countries should be in this direction,
and Somalia thinks this direction would be better.
To start with let’s find out what’s at stake. As I’ve described in previous videos,
the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea gives countries exclusive rights to all natural
resources, including fishing and drilling in a 200nm distance from their coastline – this
is the Exclusive Economic Zone. If their continental shelf extends beyond 200nm, countries can
also get an extension to their exclusive rights to the seabed and below, through a separate
application to the UN. And actually I’ve had a poster made with
information about maritime zones if you want to get one for your classroom or bedroom,
links in the description.
So whichever country gets the ocean, gets the resources it holds.
At first glance it seems like Somalia’s claim simply follows the direction of the
land border, right? But this is not the case, and this dispute is actually a lot more complex
and interesting than that. Kenya is claiming that the boundary between
EEZ’s should be straight. That is, parallel with the line of latitude. At first this seems
kind of arbitrary, but if you look at the maritime boundary of Kenya and Tanzania, you
can see why they have claimed in this way. Even Tanzania and Mozambique follow a similar
direction. Because of the boundary with Tanzania, if
Somalia’s claim is upheld, it would reduce Kenya’s Exclusive Economic Zone quite significantly.
Kenya would also prefer for the 2 countries to work it out outside of the court, citing
a Memorandum of Understanding that each country signed in 2009, but Somalia has pushed ahead
with the court case.
It may look as if Somalia’s claim is following the direction of the land border, but in fact
this is not the basis of the claim. In fact, the direction of the land border
is often ignored altogether in maritime claims and disputes.
Instead, Somalia is using an equidistant line as the basis for their claim.
Equidistant lines are not really as simple as they might sound, but more often than not,
adjusted equidistant lines are the basis on which disputed maritime boundaries are judged.
An equidistant line is a line that has points which are the same distance from designated
base points on each countries shoreline. It’s kind of a way of splitting up the ocean based
on coastal features, not on the direction of the land border.
Normally after making an equidistant line, the court would then apply any special considerations,
for example whether this line actually provides a fair split. One limitation to equidistant
lines are coastlines that are very convex and concave. In this case, equidistant lines
can be skewed, but can be adjusted by the court. Once adjusted, we have our adjusted
equidistant line.
But wouldn’t it be easier to draw a line that’s just perpendicular to the direction
of the coast? Well, simply saying ‘direction of the coast’ isn’t enough – coastlines
twist and turn, and depending on what scale you measure, the same section could be going
2 different ways. For example, what’s the general direction of this line? This way,
right? Let’s look closer – now it looks like the line is going this way, but here
its going this way. The more you zoom in, the more different directions you find. I’ll
link a great video by RealLifeLore that explains this really well in terms of measuring distance,
but it’s the same principle for measuring direction. The closer you look at a coastline,
the harder it becomes to measure it.
So is there a method that takes into account the overall direction of the coastline? Yes,
its called bisecting the angle, and unlike equidistant lines, this one is actually simpler
than it sounds. All we have to do is draw a neat line across the coast on a large scale,
and then split the angle. For example, if our line is straight, it makes 180º, so a
bisecting line will be perfectly perpendicular at 90º. If our coastline is rugged, maybe
we need 2 lines, which again form an angle that can be easily bisected.
So, what does the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea say in this case? It is very clear
about how the first 12 nautical miles from shore – the territorial waters – should
be divided, that is, using an equidistant line – but it is perhaps intentionally very
non-specific about the method for dividing the rest of the maritime zones, including
the continental shelf. This means that even though adjusted equidistant
lines are more common, they are not strictly the default when determining EEZ boundaries.
This makes maritime boundary disputes a really interesting pocket of international law, because
it leaves it completely up to the judges who have a few options, including equidistant
lines and bisecting the angle, as well as the option of adjusting lines in the best
way they see fit – and each case is judged individually.
Public hearings for the Somalia-Kenya maritime dispute are scheduled to begin in June 2020,
so there won’t be a resolution until well after that.
But when the result of this dispute is announced, you will armed with some better information
in order to understand how the decision was reached.
If you want more information on maritime zones you can read the UN Convention on the Law
of the Sea – orrr you can get one of these awesome new infographic posters that I’ve
had made, which give an overview of the different maritime zones. Links down below.
Thanks for watching, and if you’re subscribed I’ll see you next time.