Governing disputed maritime areas
Creators: name: Firatli, Gülay Çagla
Publisher: name: The University of Edinburgh
Year: 2023
Subjects: disputed maritime areas
1982 UN Convention on Law of the Sea (the LOSC)
neighbouring coastal states
overlapping maritime claims
sovereignty
maritime boundary delimitation
governance
ocean governance

description: Following the adoption of the 1982 UN Convention on Law of the Sea (the LOSC), coastal states were able to claim national jurisdiction over maritime areas adjacent to their coasts up to 200 nautical miles, or more in some circumstances. The expansion of the spatial extent of maritime areas that coastal states could claim, together with other geographical and physical factors, such as the proximity of coasts and the existence of islands, brought many maritime areas under concurrent and overlapping claims by two or more opposite or adjacent neighbouring coastal states. However, overlapping maritime claims may also exist due to competing claims of sovereignty over land and disputes over the status of maritime features, which dictate the entitlements of such features to maritime zones, or disputes over claims to sovereignty over such features. All such maritime areas of contestation, whether arising due to undelimited boundaries or sovereignty disputes over land, are referred to as disputed maritime areas. Given the technical and political difficulties surrounding maritime boundary delimitation and sovereignty disputes, negotiations do not always resolve the differences between the parties right away. In some circumstances, maritime boundary delimitation can take decades to agree upon, in others possibility of an agreement over maritime boundaries seems distant due to the existence of disputed claims to sovereignty over land, such as islands or other maritime features. Pending agreement, disputed maritime areas are characterised by competing claims to sovereignty, sovereign rights, and jurisdiction, depending on the maritime zone, complicating the exercise of coastal state competencies. In practice, disputes over maritime areas can also regularly escalate leading to military stand-offs and even acts of violence. This reality, begs the question: what is the normative and institutional framework for managing disputed maritime areas? This thesis explores this question through the concept of ‘governance’, which is influenced by the literature on ‘ocean governance.’ The conceptual framework of governance allows the thesis to address and account for the relationship and interaction between principles rules and institutions in the management of disputed maritime areas. Whilst rules dictate what is lawful or unlawful behaviour in disputed maritime areas under the international legal framework, an exclusively bilateral legal analysis of disputed maritime areas presents only a limited picture of how disputes are or can be, managed in practice. A governance perspective on disputed maritime areas is valuable because it helps reframe the problem and consider disputed maritime areas within the broader framework in which they are situated. This thesis aims to demonstrate that managing disputed maritime areas is a process that takes place at multiple levels, based on the normative framework (principles and rules), with the inclusion of institutions and other processes. Importantly, different processes are not mutually exclusive, they should rather be seen as complementary to each other.