Fortalecimiento o potenciación comunitaria

On the continental shelf the text incorporates the Australian position that the coastal state exercises control to the edge of the continental margin.5 This was the dominant goal of Australia throughout the conference. As A ustralia’s shelf extends beyond 200 miles it was felt that a limit of 200 miles would compromise Australian sovereignty and Tose’ offshore resource rights. In two areas relating to the continental shelf the Convention did not meet Australian objectives. These relate firstly to making payments or contributions in kind in respect of the exploitation of the margin beyond 200 miles (Art. 82) and second the provision relating to the powers of the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf (Art. 76(8) and Annex 11). As we have already seen Australia opposed the revenue sharing provision throughout the conference but in the end accepted it as part of a final package. It has not, however, formally accepted the revenue sharing provision.6

190

Coastal states must submit information on their shelf limits to a Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf and the Commission makes recommendations to the coastal state on matters related to these limits. Following this procedure, the outer limit would be firmly fixed.7 Australia while supporting the establishment of a Commission preferred that the Commission be advisory only and not make its own determination of the outer limits.

As well as incorporating Australia’s position on the limits of the margin the Convention also incorporates A ustralia’s position on the territorial sea limits. The Convention provides that nations can adopt a 12 mile territorial sea (Art. 3), finally settling an issue left unresolved from the earlier UN conferences.

The Convention provides for a 200 mile exclusive economic zone8 and for the right of A ustralian island territories to generate such zones, both Australian goals. In a compromise which departed from previous international law the Convention provides that rocks which cannot sustain human habitation or economic life of their own do not have an entitlement to a territorial sea, EEZ or continental shelf (Art. 121(3)). Australia along with other Pacific island countries sought to have this rider removed although it was accepted by the Oceania group, including Australia, that this would not be possible.9 Australian past practice had with regard to the Barrier Reef and Coral Sea Islands not supported such restrictions, as will be noted in the next chapter. Australian practice has continued to regard islands as generating their own maritime zones even if they could be regarded to amount only to rocks.10 Australia has not yet declared an EEZ but its 200 mile fishing zone proclaimed in 1979 is the world’s third largest 200 mile zone, although both the countries whose EEZ are larger owe the size of their zones to overseas territories.11 The fisheries provisions benefit the Australian fishing industry as the Convention preserves the fisheries of the 200 mile zone primarily for the coastal state. While the Convention does provide for the interests of DWFN by allowing access to the surplus it is the coastal states that has the final say over setting that surplus and who is allowed to fish in the zone.12 The Convention also confirms that the coastal state has sovereign rights over highly migratory species— a particularly important goal o f the South Pacific island countries that Australia supported in the Oceania group.13

Two other issues are also relevant when considering the issues of limits and resources in the new Convention. First, the Convention basically preserves the earlier baseline rule in the Geneva Convention on the Territorial Sea and Contiguous Zone, although adding a provision on islands having fringing reefs (Art. 6). Australia’s only interest here was for the conference to leave open the possibility of Australia drawing baselines along the outer edge o f the Great Barrier Reef. The issue of baselines did not occupy the

conference and Australia felt that on tactical grounds specifically pushing for a provision relating to the Great Barrier Reef may have adversely impacted on A ustralia’s margin claim, with some countries possibly regarding it as an attempt by an already advantaged state to further extend control over offshore waters.14 From 1979 the question was not an issue in any event, as the option of drawing baselines along the outer edge of the reef was decided not to be pursued for domestic political reasons.15

Australia’s goals with respect to delimitation were also largely achieved. Australia was concerned to emphasize the importance of effecting delimitation by agreement and protecting existing agreements. The delimitation articles 74 and 83 achieve those goals with respect to delim itation of the continental shelf and E E Z .16 A ustralia was unsuccessful in its attempt to ensure a provision relating to protecting its position with respect to prior sovereign rights designed to strengthen its position with respect to first Portugal and then Indonesia in the Timor Sea. It is extremely doubtful whether this disadvantaged Australia in any way with the Indonesians.17