14. starptautiskÄ konference 2012 - Latvijas JÅ«ras akadÄmija

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Proceedings of 14th International conference „Maritime Transport and Infrastructure - 2012”applied now as this convention is ratified by both countries. 1999 Latvia–Lithuania maritimedelimitation Agreement is not in national interests of Latvia, need to be denounced and the applicationfor International Court of Justice (ICJ) hearing is submitted. Such proposal of legal expert wasrecently published in Latvian Journal “Jurista Vārds”, where Liene Eglaja, Mg.Sc., has presentedexcellent analysis of history of this Agreement and proposal for future actions to rectify thesituation [8].There are many ICJ Judgments where the three stage method of testing of delimitation isapplied. On the first stage the preliminary equidistance line was drawn. Then this delimitation linemay be adjusted to take into account the specific circumstances for reaching equitable solution. Duringthe third stage the proportionality test may be applied if necessary to confirm the equity ofdelimitation.Such method was used in ICJ Judgment for Maritime Delimitation in the Black Sea, Romaniav. Ukraine case of 3rd February 2009. On the first stage in this Romania–Ukraine case the preliminaryequidistance line was drawn, then the relevant coast and relevant marine area was examined anddisproportionality test of relevant coast and relevant marine area was made. The final Judgement infact confirmed the delimitation of the first stage, i.e., made by equidistance method [9]. This ICJJudgment resolved which country has the right to exploit oil and natural gas deposits in disputedarea, which may total about 100 billion cubic meters of natural gas and 100 million metric tons ofcrude oil. This ICJ Judgment case is a good example for Latvia confirming necessity to be more proactiveand not to be afraid of submission Latvia – Lithuania delimitation case for independentjudgment of International body.3. Maritime delimitation with SwedenSweden was the first of two countries who unilaterally established EEZ / CShdelimitation applicable to Baltic Sates. This was also in regard to Latvia. In 1992 SwedishGovernment adopted the Ordinance on Sweden's Exclusive Economic Zone, 3 December 1992, werein paragraph 6. in the Central and Northern Baltic Sea straight lines (loxodromes) between the 17points were confirmed [10].The delimitation line in regard to Baltic States apparently has been taken from 1988 USSR–Sweden delimitation Agreement, where the principles of disputed area delimitation was agreed as 75%in favour of Sweden in exchange of fishing quotas 75% in favour of USSR [11].Should Latvia inherit USSR-Sweden delimitation of EEZ / CSh the opinions are different.Sweden naturally was positive on that opinion; same internationally recognized legal experts (viz. ErikFrankx) also support this delimitation principle [12].This is not in line with general rule adopted by Latvian Parliament in 1991 saying thatagreements signed by USSS are not binding for Latvia. There were no maritime delimitationnegotiations in early 1990 between Sweden and Latvia ( at least to the knowledge of author) whentheoretically new delimitation could be negotiated. Now that possibility is lost, especially because in2005 Latvia submitted to UN Law of the Sea commission very similar delimitation points as inSweden Government 1992 Ordinances. It was confirmed by Latvia submission to UN Law of the SeaCommission that “points A4-A14 are according with the Agreement between the USSR and Sweden1988 which is de facto observed. [13] Even in case this 2005 submission from Latvia would not bemade, the 20 year period for fishing quotas revision as in USSR-Sweden Agreement have expired in2008 and does not apply as now all fishing activities are under European Union ruling. All this makedelimitation line with Sweden clearly established and leave no chance to new negotiations.At the same time official bi-partial Agreement with Sweden need to be concluded but first thecommon point with Lithuania and Sweden be established.8
Proceedings of 14th International conference „Maritime Transport and Infrastructure - 2012”4. Maritime Delimitation in the Gulf of RigaDelimitation in the Gulf of Riga in regard to Estonia is clear since 1996 Agreement was inforce. Some small problem rose because some Irbe fairway boys are installed in Estonian waters, butthis matter has been settled. We may notice some problems of compliance of Latvian Nationallegislation with UNCLOS 82 provisions in regard to State border and territorial sea outer limit in Gulfof Rīga area.Fig.3 Gulf of Riga area according to Notices of Mariners No.1, 2012According to Latvian Law “On the State Border of the Republic of Latvia”, Section 1 we read,that “9) territorial sea of the Republic of Latvia (hereinafter – territorial sea):a) the waters of the Baltic Sea in width of 12 nautical miles, counting from the base line if ithas not been otherwise specified by international agreements,b) waters of the Gulf of Riga of the Baltic Sea from the base line to the State border which isdetermined in accordance with the agreement of 12 July 1996 between the Republic of Latvia and theRepublic of Estonia regarding determination of the sea border in the Gulf of Riga, the Irbe Strait andthe Baltic Sea;"When looking on the on map published in the Notices of Mariners No.1, 2012 of LatvianHydrographical Service (Fig.3), where the State border is delimitation line as agreed with Estonia in1996 Agreement.Nothing wrong with Latvia- Estonia border line, but according to UNCLOS 82 Article 3territorial sea shall not exceed 12 nautical miles: ”Every State has the right to establish the breadth ofits territorial sea up to a limit not exceeding 12 nautical miles, measured from baselines determined inaccordance with this Convention.”When examining baseline situation in the Gulf of Riga we may notice some straight baselinesdrawn not in compliance with Articles 6 and 10 of UNCLOS 82.These two non-compliances of Latvian legislation with UNCLOS 82 may be discussed morein detail, possibly this is deliberately arranged for strategic purposes.9
Page 1 and 2: LATVIJAS JŪRAS AKADĒMIJALJA PĒTN
Page 3: Proceedings of 14th International c
Page 11 and 12: Proceedings of 14th International c
Page 21 and 22: 20002001200220032004200520062007200
Page 51 and 52: KEMPINSKItNt>...... /1--":-...... I
Page 59 and 60:
Proceedings of 14th International c
Page 61 and 62:
Page 63 and 64:
Page 65 and 66:
Page 67 and 68:
Page 69 and 70:
Page 71 and 72:
Concentration, mg/m 3Proceedings of
Page 73 and 74:
0:001:002:003:004:005:006:007:008:0
Page 75 and 76:
Page 77 and 78:
Page 79 and 80:
Page 81 and 82:
Page 83 and 84:
Page 85 and 86:
Page 87 and 88:
Page 89 and 90:
Page 91 and 92:
Page 93 and 94:
Page 95 and 96:
Page 97 and 98:
Page 99 and 100:
Page 101 and 102:
Page 103 and 104:
Page 105 and 106:
Page 107 and 108:
Page 109 and 110:
Page 111 and 112:
Page 113 and 114:
Page 115 and 116:
Page 117 and 118:
Page 119 and 120:
Page 121 and 122:
Page 123 and 124:
Air temperature, deg CWater tempera
Page 125 and 126:
Water level (+/-), centimetreProcee
Page 127 and 128:
Page 129 and 130:
Page 131 and 132:
Page 133 and 134:
Page 135 and 136:
Page 137 and 138:
Page 139 and 140:
Page 141 and 142:
Mln. LtMln. LtProceedings of 14th I
Page 143 and 144:
Page 145 and 146:
Page 147 and 148:
Page 149 and 150:
Page 151 and 152:
show all

14. starptautiskÄ konference 2012 - Latvijas JÅ«ras akadÄmija

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?

14. starptautiskÄ konference 2012 - Latvijas JÅ«ras akadÄmija