The sea level is rising, and its currently projected that it could rise by up to a meter
in the next 80 years.
This will drastically alter the geography of coastlines changing the size of ocean territories
– so how will this affect countries’ maritime boundaries, and should we make maritime boundaries
permanent, so they don’t shrink?
As sea levels rise, coastal geography shifts, and islands disappear.
So why is it important to think about what happens to invisible borders far, far from
the coast, in the middle of the open ocean?
The answer is, because these invisible lines, or maritime boundaries, determine the amount
of ocean resources people, or their countries, have access to - which developing countries
can use to grow their economies.
Maritime boundaries are calculated from the land, so if that land changes, or becomes
inundated, how does that affect the limits of the boundaries?
This video will answer that question, and explore what can be done about it.
We’re going to focus on the South Pacific, where there’s a large number of countries
that are already close to sea level, and so will be disproportionately affected by any
rise.
So let’s quickly and simply refresh ourselves on how the UN Convention on the Law of the
Sea calculates maritime boundaries.
Here’s some coastline, with some land, and sea.
If you’ve been to the beach, you know its normal for the tide to go in and out throughout
the day.
The low-tide mark, is called the ‘baseline’.
A country has exclusive rights to all of the fishing and natural resources in a 200 nautical
mile distance from the baseline.
This area of ocean is called the Exclusive Economic Zone.
So now we see the problem: as sea levels rise, the low-tide mark shifts landwards.
This moves the baseline, and contracts the outer limit of the Exclusive Economic Zone.
Not only does the country lose land territory, but they also lose ocean territory.
Where two countries are less than 400 nautical miles apart, they negotiate the limits of
their EEZs, which often ends up being the mid-point between the two countries.
However this is not always the case, and in the South Pacific, some negotiations are ongoing,
so some maritime boundaries are not yet officially determined, which makes the situation of shifting
baselines even trickier.
So what does the law currently say about sea level rise and coastal erosion and how that
affects baselines?
Well it pretty much confirms what we just touched on – that baselines are expected
to be ambulatory.
That is, they change position as natural processes change coastlines.
The problem with this, is that the UN convention on the law of the sea was written in 1982,
when there wasn’t as much awareness of the imminent inundation of small Pacific islands.
There are other fundamental problems with ambulatory baselines too – they are very
hard to police.
Coastal geography changes moment-to-moment, as each wave or current erodes or brings new
sediment to a coastline.
While baselines are measured on large-scale maps, rather than on coastal micro-changes,
there is no fixed-period for reviewing them.
A baseline that is meant to be ambulatory, but measured on a large-scale without regular
adjustment is somewhat of a contradiction.
So what can be done about disappearing EEZs, for the people of the Pacific and low-lying
coastal nations in other areas?
The most obvious, and probably most widely accepted option currently, is to fix baselines
at their current position, regardless of future sea level changes.
This means that as sea levels rise, countries may lose land, but the outer limits of their
EEZs would remain the same, because the baselines remain the same.
International Law currently does not accommodate this kind of fixing of baselines, however
baselines can already ‘fix’ themselves over coastal features such as river-mouths,
so the idea of fixing a baseline in general is actually not totally novel.
Another option, if fixed baselines aren’t adopted – is that South Pacific countries
may be encouraged to literally sand-bag their islands, artificially keeping them above the
level of the sea in order to preserve their land and their maritime zones.
If this were to be encouraged in the South Pacific, it could further muddy the legal
waters in the South China Sea, where China has been widely frowned upon for reclaiming
land to strengthen their disputed claims to that ocean territory.
Given the complexities of the international law surrounding baselines and maritime zones,
fixing baselines in the South Pacific is actually probably the easier option, rather than constantly
adapting existing maritime boundaries to fit shifting tides.
It would also give the benefit of preserving EEZs for these small countries, whose impact
on climate change is so minimal, but are most affected by rising sea levels.
Fixing baselines would require agreement and cooperation between the countries of the South
Pacific, and the international community, in terms of creating a new precedent for threatened
or dynamic coastlines.
It certainly would add an interesting layer of international law over the top of territorial
disputes outside of the South Pacific, that also arise from shifting coastlines – for
example the dispute between Nicaragua and Costa Rica which I touch on in a previous
video, I’ll link that below.
Speaking of disputes, we should also consider fixed borders in the broader world order.
If embraced in the Pacific, fixed baselines will likely also be adopted elsewhere as it’s
a good way of avoiding future international disputes.
However this could also lead to some unanswered questions.
If a country like the US adopts fixed baselines, what would happen if the land territory expands
naturally, like through volcanic activity in Hawaii?
And if baselines are fixed, but people are displaced to other counties because their
islands have been submerged, how do we make sure those people get the benefits of their
preserved EEZs?
There’s no doubt we should be addressing the cause of rising sea levels – global
warming causing melting of polar icecaps and expansion of ocean water . But some degree
of sea level rise now seems inevitable.
Low-lying coastal nations will have to adapt to this, and International Law should also
be adapted to support them.
Let me know what you think the best solution to this difficult conundrum is.
I always love to hear what you all think.
And if you love geopolitics as much as I do, you can get this awesome Maritime Boundaries
T-shirt, which is based on a real map of some of the South Pacific EEZs.
I had this designed because I like nice map designs, but if you’re interested too, the
link is below.
I’ve also linked my other videos which talk about maritime boundaries in a bit more detail.
Thanks for watching, and see you next time.