диссертация (1169188), страница 23
Текст из файла (страница 23)
16(2) of the UNCLOS). Thisobligation of states raised the matter of the new future functions of the UNSecretary-General. Indeed, Art. 4(6) of the 1958 Convention on the Territorial Seaand Contiguous Zone provides for the coastal state’s obligation to mark straightbaselines on charts and duly publish them; the 1958 Convention, however,contains no obligation to deposit a copy of such a map with the UN SecretaryGeneral.These new functions of the UN Secretary-General, in turn, raise the issue ofsummarizing the naval charts and the respective geodetic data used. Theimplementation of that provision of the UNCLOS, according to the EnglishCommentary thereto, would be “essentially unprecedented” in the work of the UN,which would entail additional responsibility of the Organization due to thefunctions of a depositary of map materials.
The potential volume of naval chartsand lists of coordinates to be deposited with the UN Secretary-General, thecomplexity of their processing pose the problem of availability, with the UN, ofsufficient material resources and trained staff.126 Another factor to be taken intoaccount is the obvious difference in capabilities to create such charts – between theU.S., for example, and an African State. The implications would be even moresignificant, especially for relevant equipment, if any states (for instance,developing ones) would wish to “give due publicity” to such charts and lists withthe help of the UN Secretariat.
That might generate the need to create centralizedfacilities to accumulate all those map materials and to take measures to ensure theappropriate analytic potential at the intersection of mapping and the law of the seawith the UN Secretariat.125Ibid.P.149.126Ibid.P.150.101On the whole, the above analysis of the text of the English Commentary tothe UNCLOS articles on baselines shows that its authors do not deem these articlesof the UNCLOS successful: not only are they not performed universally by themajority of state parties, but they have no chance of being performed by themajority of developing states in the discernible future.§ 2.
The legal practice of the Russian Empire and the Soviet Union onbaselines along the Arctic coastOut of the five Arctic states (i.e., states with internal maritime waters,territorial sea, continental shelf, EEZ in the Arctic Ocean), four use straightbaselines: Canada, Denmark (Greenland), and Norway use straight baselinesexclusively, and Russia applies partly normal, partly straight baselines.The Russian Empire (just as many other coastal states) started, from the 18thcentury, paying attention to the legal matters of maritime areas adjacent to itsterritory, namely, the territorial waters (territorial sea). Among the acts adoptedduring that century, one can find some indications of baselines as well.
Thus, theRules for Private Corsairs (that is, capers), issued by Russia in 1787, provided thatRussian capers could seize enemy ships beyond the territorial waters of a neutralstate, whose breadth was determined by the cannonball shot distance and wasmeasured from that state’s coast.127In Russia’s treaties made in 1786 with France; in 1787 with the Kingdom ofthe Two Sicilies and Portugal; and with Sweden in 1891, the territorial waters ofthe state were measured from its coast. Throughout almost the entire 19th century,127Here and further, I am using the following authorities on the history of the international law of the sea: Morskoepravo [Law of the Sea].
Professor of the Imperial Novorossiysk University, A.F. Fyodorov. Odessa. “Tekhnik”Print. 1913 г. 330 P.; Kolodkin А.L. Istoriya mezhdunarodnogo prava [History of International Law]. /Sovremennoe mezhdunarodnoe morskoe pravo. Rezhim vod i dna Mirovogo okeana [Contemporary InternationalLaw of the Sea. The Regime of Waters and Floor of the World Ocean]. Ed.
by M.I. Lazared. Moscow: Nauka. 1974.P.15-33; Mezhdunarodnoe morskoe pravo [International Law of the Sea]. Naval Academy named after Admiral ofthe USSR Fleet N.G. Kuznetsov. Chief author and ed. V.P. Kirilenko. Saint-Petersburg. 1996. P. 3-52.Unfortunately, these authorities on the law of the sea are missing from the English collection of international legaldocuments published by an employee of Lenpravda bank: Key Documents and Research Materials in InternationalLaw.
Ed. by Z. Hafez. William S. Hein and Co., Inc. Buffalo, New York. 2008. IX+1216 P.102the width of coastal waters (territorial sea) was measured from the coast. Therewas no notion of “baselines” either in international or Russian law.From the 1880s on, Russia started sending military ships “cruising”,including to defend military and marine trades in the North. An 1887 Instruction toa Russian cruiser prescribing to defend marine fisheries in Russia’s coastal watersin the European part of the Arctic Ocean, stated, in particular, that territorial waterswere measured from the coast.
The term “baselines” is never mentioned in the1887 Instruction.That practice was also followed by other states. Thus, under the US treatiesmade with Mexico in 1848 and 1853, the width of the coastal waters was to bemeasured from the “mainland.”Nevertheless, especially from the second half of the 19th century, the lowwater line started being used as a baseline to measure territorial waters, as reflectedin a number of bilateral treaties of European states: the 1839 treaty betweenEngland and France; the 1893 treaty between Spain and Portugal; the 1899 treatybetween Denmark and Sweden; the multilateral Convention on Fishing in theNorthern Part of the Atlantic Ocean of 1881.From the late 19th century, Russia, too, started using the same method ofdrawing baselines to measure its territorial waters. Thus, an instruction to warshipssent cruising to defend the marine trades in the territorial waters of EuropeanRussia in the north (i.e., the unfreezing waters of the Barents Sea), indicated since1893 that territorial waters were measured “from the furthest coastline into the lowwater”.
“Low water” here meant the low tide.The same procedure for measuring the breadth of territorial waters is alsoseen in the instruction to warships defending fisheries in Russia’s territorial watersin the Pacific Ocean. It was also fixed in the Customs Charter of 1910, i.e., in thelegislation.It should be noted, that, apart from the said normal baseline – the low-waterline – the instructions Russian cruisers were equipped with in the 1880s mentioned103that the three nautical mile territorial waters were measured from straight linesclosing gulfs, bays, as well as from the “extreme” islands and rocks.Thus, Russia (rather than just Norway) began applying the straight baselinesmethod in the 19th century, although that term was not used in Russia’s 19th centurylegal documents.On the contrary, the abovementioned Russian Instruction of 1887 stated thatbays comprising the Rybachy Peninsula, were included in Russia’s internal waters,while their limits were defined by drawing a straight “line” from the mouth of theJacob River to Cape Nemetsky.
The same “straight line” (essentially a straight“baseline” was also used in specifying the status of the White Sea, declaredRussia’s internal sea from 1893 in an instruction to cruisers sent to defend ourfisheries. The content of that instruction was notified to the Swedish-NorwayGovernment in 1893 that took notice thereof without any protests.Alexander I’s decree of 4 September 1821 provides that the limits ofRussia’s coastal sea waters were to be measured from the coast.Expressly, the Russian Empire used the straight baselines method in cases ofbays and smaller seas, whose configuration resembles a bay, where the width ofthe territorial sea was measured from a straight line connecting the extreme pointsof the bay’s mouth. Thus, that straight closing line method was employed by theRussian Empire in the cases of the White Sea, the Mezensk Gulf, and the RybachyPeninsula.In the Soviet period, the above practice of the Russian Empire was adoptedand continued.
Both methods – that of the straight and normal baselines – foundtheir way into a number of legal acts.Thus, in 1918, the Council of People’s Commissars of the RSFSR adopted adecree On the Institution of Border Guards, with Art. 5 providing that, “The waterbody within twelve nautical miles of the low-water line from the sea coast” of theRSFSR shall be deemed “the maritime customs belt.”Due to breaches by Norwegian and English fishers of the regime ofterritorial waters of Russia in the European part of the Arctic (fishing and hunting104for sea mammals), the Council of People’s Commissars of the RSFSR furtherenacted, in 1921, a Decree On the Protection of Fishing and Hunting Grounds inthe Arctic Ocean and the White Sea.
That Decree declared the RSFSR’s right tothe exclusive exploitation of fishing and hunting grounds in the “White Sea – southof the straight line connecting the Svyatoy Nos and Kanin Nos capes; in theChosha Bay – south of the straight line connecting Mikulin cape and Svyatoy Noscape; and in the Arctic Ocean – along the coast, from the state boundary withFinland to the northernmost point of the Novaya Zemlya; seaward, 12 nauticalmiles from the low-water line, both along the mainland coast and island coast.”1927 was marked by the adoption of the Regulation on Defence of the StateBoundary of the USSR providing that the breadth of the territorial sea is to bemeasured from the low-water line.Reference to the low-water line can also be found in the Soviet treaties.Thus, the 1930 Provisional Fisheries Agreement with the UK provided that,subject to the treaty terms prescribed, “the Government of the USSR agrees thatfishing vessels registered in the United Kingdom ports may fish within three totwelve geographic miles from the low-water line along the northern coasts of theUSSR and their related islands.”As it may be recalled, in 1958, at the 1st Geneva Conference of the UN onthe Law of the Sea, states adopted the Convention on the Territorial Sea andContiguous Zone.
![](https://s.studizba.com/z.php?f=/templates/si/i/noavatar.png&w=100&h=100&t=1"){kind=avatar}
