Menas Borders Newshttp://www.menasborders.com/index.htmlLatest News from Menas Borderseninfo@menasborders.com©2008 Menas Borders2009-06-23T13:26:46+01:00 hourly 1 2000-01-01T12:00+00:00 Mon, 29 Sep 2008 14:12:38 +0100info@menasborders.comhome2009-06-23T13:26:46+01:00http://www.menasborders.com/files/home.html#unique-entry-id-2http://www.menasborders.com/files/home.html#unique-entry-id-2

Menas Borders is an independent and confidential source of advice for individuals and institutions requiring assistance in understanding difficult territorial and boundary issues.

We take a multi-disciplinary approach to boundaries, working closely with lawyers, cartographers, geologists, anthropologists, historians and archivists where necessary to deliver enhanced understanding for our clients, and between us possess decades of experience in advising governments, oil gas and mining companies on their offshore and onshore border related questions.


Notes from the margin: Recent Boundary Related News]]>United Arab Emirates declare Iran’s island offices “illegal”info@menasborders.comhome2008-09-10T14:43:49+01:00http://www.menasborders.com/files/fa4f645dd7becc3aa06e719c874cb6d8-22.html#unique-entry-id-22http://www.menasborders.com/files/fa4f645dd7becc3aa06e719c874cb6d8-22.html#unique-entry-id-2210th September

According to a statement released by the Gulf Cooperation Council, the ministerial council has demanded the removal of two offices which have been established by Iran on the disputed island of Abu Musa.

The 12km island, which is “heavily fortified and populated by soldiers” was annexed in 1992, with neighboring Greater and Lesser Tunbs having been claimed in 1971. These islands have long been a source of ongoing contention, and although the islands are under Iranian control, the United Arab Emirates continue to claim sovereignty to the land, with wide support from the Arab community.

While the UAE have proposed settling the dispute through the International Courts, Iran has reportedly refused to allow any third party involvement or mediation.

“Key for tanker traffic”

Abu Musa is situated in the Strait of Hormuz, between Iran and the UAE – a waterway which is used for transportation of oil via tankers from the Gulf which according to figures carries a fifth of the world’s oil supply.

The two offices on the island are, according to Iran, merely there for administration purposes and to help with “ship registration and maritime rescue.” Foreign Ministry Spokesman Hassan Ghashghavi has insisted that Iran’s activities on the island are within their rights, however, the GCC have reportedly expressed concerns that the move is a strategic one, designed to result in Iran having a greater degree of control over shipping traffic.

Middle East editor David Hartwell for ‘Jane’s Country Risk’ has suggested that the strategic importance of the island lies at the heart of the dispute. Indeed, in the “war of the tankers” of the 1980’s, Abu Musa acted as the base from which Iran fired missiles at Iraqi oil tankers.

In November 2005, a British couple and Australian yachtsman were held by the Iranian authorities for 13 days under armed guard, having approached the island by sea, unaware of the sensitivities surrounding it.
]]>New Zealand optimistic on Continental Shelf Claiminfo@menasborders.comhome2008-09-10T14:18:30+01:00http://www.menasborders.com/files/613955d31727f6ad4a788747d7f7eb44-21.html#unique-entry-id-21http://www.menasborders.com/files/613955d31727f6ad4a788747d7f7eb44-21.html#unique-entry-id-2110th September

New Zealand is expecting a positive response to a continental shelf claim lodged in 2006, and which if successful would entitle the country to some 1.6 million square kilometres of seabed. According to NZ press reports, New Zealand officials are expecting word from the UN Law of the Sea Commission “any day now.”

In its claim, the NZ says the continental shelf north of New Zealand comprises “a series of ridges and basins that are morphologically and geologically the continuous prolongation of the New Zealand land mass,” and describes its major features as the Kermadec Trench, Kermadec Ridge, Havre Trough, Colville Ridge, and Three Kings Ridge. The continental margin described in this part of the submission covers an area that extends without a break for up to 2,700 km north from the North Island along the Kermadec-Colville ridge systems, and for more than 800 km north from the North Island along the Three Kings Ridge.

Maritime boundaries yet to be finalized

The claim takes account of the fact that it has yet to finalise its sea boundaries with neighbours. It extends along, for example, the Kermadec and Colville ridges, “to an intersection with the lines 200 nautical miles from the territorial sea baselines of Fiji and Tonga,” but as per Article 76 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea the submission has been made “without prejudice to the eventual delimitation [of its boundaries with those two countries.]”

The claim does not include “those areas of the continental shelf appurtenant to Antarctica,” but would give the country control entitlement to what are believed to be very substantial mineral resources, including oil and gas, gold, and manganese deposits.

New Zealand took 10 years, and spent an estimated US$44 million in compiling the data required to make its claim, an executive summary of which can be found here.
]]>Rival Cypriot leaders meet for direct talksinfo@menasborders.comhome2008-09-10T14:08:59+01:00http://www.menasborders.com/files/54ab552f7dedf254efce2b6560503dc9-20.html#unique-entry-id-20http://www.menasborders.com/files/54ab552f7dedf254efce2b6560503dc9-20.html#unique-entry-id-2010th September


Rival Cypriot leaders met for direct talks over the island’s future for the first time in four years, September 3, local press has reported. The largely ceremonial meeting is regarded as an ice-breaker prior to more substantial negotiations which begin September 11th.

Reports suggest that both are committed to a favourable outcome, with President Demetris Christofias having told reporters that the creation of a “bi-zonal, bi-communal federation” represented his “life’s mission.” Turkish Cypriot leader Mehmet Ali Talat descry said that he and his counterpart had a “historic responsibility” to find a solution to the seemingly intractable dispute.

Among the sticking points, however, are the issues of power-sharing, security arrangements, and the presence of Turkish troops, and whether the Turkish side will consent to a new crossing point between the two sectors at Limnitis in the island’s northwest.

In March 2007 the Cyprus government surprised observers by opening a crossing at Ledra Street in the capital Nicosia – something the Turkish side had long pushed for. In return the Greeks are anxious to establish a crossing at Limnitis, which would massively speed travelling times between Nicosia and the northwest region, but the Turkish government appears reluctant.

But observers say that despite the enormity of the challenge that lies ahead, the joint credentials of Talat and Christofias are as good as any to attempt it. The chemistry between the two leaders is thought to be excellent and their desire to resolve the issue genuine.

A leading Nicosia political writer told Menas Borders that on the Greek side Christofias was better placed to “sell” a solution to his domestic constituents than any other contemporary politician, and that he enjoyed the backing not only of his party, but also the main opposition groups, but that it would still be difficult.

“The Greek Cypriots are going to be asked to give up a great deal in terms of power-sharing, property and territory,” he said, adding, “but there is an awareness [amongst the Greek side] that if it is to be seen to blame for stalling an agreement, the consequences could be very unwanted,” and include Turkish Cyprus making a concerted effort to seek recognition from the international community. Currently only Turkey recognises Turkish Cypriot independence and statehood.

]]>UK makes Atlantic Sea Bed Claiminfo@menasborders.comhome2008-08-27T14:42:10+01:00http://www.menasborders.com/files/f66dfdfc91275786c4e68cf82aa9bfb2-19.html#unique-entry-id-19http://www.menasborders.com/files/f66dfdfc91275786c4e68cf82aa9bfb2-19.html#unique-entry-id-1927th August 2008



The BBC has reported, August 27th, that Britain will present a continental shelf claim for the region surrounding its overseas territory, Ascension Island.

Under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), coastal states automatically have rights to seabed areas reaching up to 200 nautical miles from the shore. Britain contends that Acension’s continental shelf extends beyond 200 miles and is making the claim accordingly.

This is not the only area of seabed to which Britain has laid claim in recent years. In 2006 a joint claim with France, Spain and the Irish Republic was made for the continental shelf in a region of the bay of Biscay, and Britain is also currently negotiating with Iceland, Ireland and Denmark to make a joint claim for a region in the Hattan-Rockall area of the North East Atlantic.

There has also been interest in British Antarctic Territory. Although the Foreign Office has stressed that there has been no official claim made, Britain has still reserved the right to make a claim in future, and this statement in itself has proved controversial, with environmentalists condemning what they term the “new colonialism”. Although the territory has been safeguarded against mineral exploitation by the 1991 Antarctic Treaty, the NGO Greenpeace has voiced its concern over the potential damage to fragile oceanic ecosystems that may result from countries racing to claim ownership of previously untouched areas.

The potential political conflicts which are likely to arise from counter claims are apparent from examining the issues surrounding Britain’s bid for the areas surrounding the Falkland Islands, the sovereignty of which is still contested with Argentina.

According to the BBC, within hours of the details of a British claim being released, it received a statement from Argentine officials, declaring that they are “preparing their own counter-claim”.

]]>Ghana “to extend continental shelf limit” says land and fisheries minister Dapaah.info@menasborders.comhome2008-08-27T14:36:32+01:00http://www.menasborders.com/files/bdf2ca964d966dd8ab9c88a8c7875307-18.html#unique-entry-id-18http://www.menasborders.com/files/bdf2ca964d966dd8ab9c88a8c7875307-18.html#unique-entry-id-1827th August 2008

The West African state of Ghana has declared, August 13th, that it is to submit a claim to extend the limit of its continental shelf beyond the 200 mile limit.

Under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), coastal states have defined areas of ocean which they are allowed to use for economic purposes. The aim of UNCLOS is to prevent conflict between states over oceanic resources such as fish/mineral resources/oil.

In general cases, countries are designated approximately 200 nautical miles offshore, Ghana (most entities, companies, countries etc, are singular entities not plural), however is seeking to extend its maritime rights under UNCLOS in order to gain access to a further 150 miles offshore.

If successful, this will mean exclusive access to the resources within the extended 350 mile zone, which, it hopes, will provide economic benefit to both current and to future generations.

The Ghanaian government said its project to extend its continental shelf entitlement began following the findings of the International Seabed Authority Report of 2000. Esther Obeng Dapaah, the Lands, Forestry and Mines Minister has stated that the report indicated that through extending their offshore rights, Ghana would be able to access not only to potentially eight billion barrels of oil, but also to a wealth of mineral resources and a source of hydrocarbon.

Ghana is still in the process of considering whether to carry out a joint submission or a coordinated submission with Nigeria.
]]>Russia Recognises Independence of breakaways as Serbs declare, “we told you so.” info@menasborders.comhome2008-08-26T14:31:31+01:00http://www.menasborders.com/files/c482d28df015940a371de67133d8045e-17.html#unique-entry-id-17http://www.menasborders.com/files/c482d28df015940a371de67133d8045e-17.html#unique-entry-id-1726th August 2008

The two Georgian breakaway regions of South Ossetia and Abkhazia have now been officially recognised as independent by the Russian Federation.

The declaration by President Dmitry Medvedev has been met negatively by the United States, and by a number of European governments, while observers have expressed the concern that the decision will cause a further deterioration in relations between Russia and the West which are already strained. The move, along with Russia’s recent cancellation of a visit by Nato’s secretary general Jaap de Hoop Scheffer, has also led to speculation that Russia is “preparing itself for a showdown”.

On Monday, Georgia’s Head of the Parliamentary Committee for European Integration declared that Russia’s decision to recognise the independence of the two regions undermined not only Georgia, but also Nato, the UN and the EU, and argued that recognition must come from “the international community, not a particular aggressor state”.

But the Russian government has claimed its decision was made “in the interests of saving lives,” which has been greeted with an enthusiastic response by the inhabitants of the regions themselves.

Russia-watchers and the Russian government itself had predicted that the seeming acceptance by the West of Kosovo’s unilateral declaration of independence earlier in 2008, would precipitate a copy-cat acceptance of the breakaway regions. In an August 26th statement, the Serbian Ministry of Foreign Affairs stated that it was “following events in the Caucasus with concern,” and added that it had “been warning continuously” that the Kosovo’s UDI “could be precedent-like and might destabilise other regions in the world” and that “sadly, such predictions came true.”

It added that “official Belgrade respects international law and is principled in efforts to preserve sovereignty and territorial integrity of internationally recognised states, primarily the Republic of Serbia.”

]]>Preah Vihearinfo@menasborders.comhome2008-08-20T16:17:40+01:00http://www.menasborders.com/files/597cb7ed15d3cfb0808a94daa143d36f-16.html#unique-entry-id-16http://www.menasborders.com/files/597cb7ed15d3cfb0808a94daa143d36f-16.html#unique-entry-id-1620th August 2008

The announcement of a top-level meeting between Thai and Cambodian officials has raised hopes of an end to the long-running battle over access to an ancient temple, which is both a place of pilgrimage and has recently become a UNESCO listed tourist attraction.

While the dispute over the Preah Vihear has recently resurfaced, it has in fact been the source of ongoing contention for the past century.

Original maps drawn by French cartographers in 1907 to establish boundary settlements between Thailand and Cambodia placed Preah Vihear just within the border, on Cambodian soil. Thailand failed to object to this decision at the time, however, following Cambodian Independence in 1950, Thais occupied the temple and re-ignited boundary conflict between the two nations.

Cambodia appealed to the International Courts of Justice, which RULED in favour of the former French colony in 1962. But the ruling failed to put an end to the dispute, with Thailand's source of contention shifting from the temple itself to the surrounding 4.6sq km of land over which there remain rival territorial claims.

The recent spat is thought to have arisen primarily as a result of Preah Vihear’s listing as a UNESCO World Heritage Site on July 7. The following week saw the detention by Cambodian troops of three Thai protesters who illegally entered the temple, precipitating a military standoff between the two countries, both of which moved to deploy significant numbers of troops to the area in following months.

With the situation invoking memories of a 2003 attack on the Thai embassy over Angkor Wat, talks were held to prevent the situation from deteriorating further. The Cambodian foreign minister appealed for third party mediation from the ASEAN when these talks failed to reach an agreement, and mid July saw Vietnam step in to call for co-operation between the two countries.

Analysts have suggested that the dispute has been primarily fuelled by domestic politics, and Menas’ August issue of Vietnam Focus highlights the role of instability within the Thai government in exacerbating the conflict through polarising opinion.

UNESCO's decision is thought to have resulted in political UNEASE within Thailand, and anti-government groups exploited the controversy to gain support and bolster their ongoing campaign against Prime Minister Samak Sundaravej. Thai Foreign Minister Noppadon Patama was forced to step down on July 10th, following a ruling by the Constitutional Court earlier in the week that his decision to support Cambodia's application for World Heritage Status had "violated the constitution".

In Cambodia too, the temple dispute became the focus of political campaigns, and is thought to have contributed to Hun Sen’s general election victory, July 27.

However, the past week has seen an easing of tension, with both sides withdrawing their troops from the area over the weekend of August 16 and 17 of August, both sides leaving just 10 soldiers from each country at the site.

This week will see the meeting of Tej Bunnag and Hor Namhong, the Thai and Cambodian foreign ministers, in Hua Hin to discuss the issues of the border and temple dispute, in the hope of reaching a final lasting solution.

]]>Nigerians to hand over Bakassi info@menasborders.comhome2008-08-14T11:39:57+01:00http://www.menasborders.com/files/40eec94855e8c1664eb1a7f75ce5b01a-12.html#unique-entry-id-12http://www.menasborders.com/files/40eec94855e8c1664eb1a7f75ce5b01a-12.html#unique-entry-id-1214th August 2008

A flag-swapping ceremony will mark the handing over by Nigeria of the long disputed Bakassi peninsula to Cameroon today, despite a number of events intended to stall the handover.

In July a group of Bakassi rebels, self-described as the Niger Delta Defence and Security Council (NDDSC) claimed responsibility for an attack at Kombo Ajanea, in which 12 people died, including two Cameroonian soldiers and said that the change of sovereignty would not stifle further attacks. In a statement a “commander” for the group said that the handover would “not change anything on the ground” and threatened that more attacks would be imminent in the absence of a “renegotiation” of the transfer.

However a Nigerian government spokesman was more upbeat. Foreign Affairs Minister Ojo Madueke said in an interview last week that preparations were “in top gear” to make sure the handover was “hitch-free.” He added that while it was difficult for many Nigerians “to understand and grapple with this loss,” the government nonetheless believed that there was “a positive side to it,” and added "(It shows) we are a very responsible member of the international community, we are very law abiding and we honour our commitments.”

The Cameroonian government has reassured Nigerians living in Bakassi that they neither are obliged to give up their Nigerian citizenship, or to remain living in the peninsula. The Punch, “Nigeria’s most widely read newspaper” reported August 14 that the Nigerian Federal Government would be spending one billion naira on the creation of a New Bakassi Local Government area on the Nigerian side of the border, in order to accommodate Bakassi citizens wishing to relocate.

The particulars of the agreement between the two countries are contained in the Green Tree Agreement
]]>Lebanon and Syria to demarcate their borderinfo@menasborders.comhome2008-08-14T11:35:47+01:00http://www.menasborders.com/files/6b6e6d1c025487790ec309744c412ccc-11.html#unique-entry-id-11http://www.menasborders.com/files/6b6e6d1c025487790ec309744c412ccc-11.html#unique-entry-id-1114 August 2008

At a news conference, August 14, the governments of Syria and Lebanon confirmed that they would be proceeding with the demarcation of their shared border as part of a broader effort to improve relations between the two countries. However, the demarcation will not include the Shebaa farms, adjacent to the Golan Heights and currently occupied by the Israelis, and arguably representing one of the most problematic contested territories in the world.
]]>US sets out to map its icy continental shelfinfo@menasborders.comhome2008-08-12T11:42:14+01:00http://www.menasborders.com/files/6cead1eeed13c37c1fd14fa61faedbad-14.html#unique-entry-id-14http://www.menasborders.com/files/6cead1eeed13c37c1fd14fa61faedbad-14.html#unique-entry-id-1412th August 2008

The Reuters news agency has reported that a U.S. Coast Guard cutter is soon to embark on a voyage to determine the extent of the continental shelf north of Alaska and to map the ocean floor, in the course of a three-week journey commencing August 14.

The vessel, The Healy, is to launch again on September 6, when it will be joined by Canadian scientists aboard an icebreaker, who will help collect data to determine the thickness of sediment in the region – which is one of a number of factors which can be used to define an extended continental shelf.

The news agency reported US State Department Margaret Hays as saying that its intended destinations represented "places nobody's gone before” and that the data collected would provide information to the public about future oil and natural gas sources for the United States.

She also suggested that the US believed that the Alaskan continental shelf might lie up to 600 nautical miles from the coastline, far beyond the 200-mile (322-km) limit where coastal countries have sovereign rights over natural resources.]]>Korea to develop hydrates resources despite Japanese protests in disputed island regioninfo@menasborders.comhome2008-08-01T11:41:59+01:00http://www.menasborders.com/files/3371a2d8f0a8610f5115ab9eea949ea9-13.html#unique-entry-id-13http://www.menasborders.com/files/3371a2d8f0a8610f5115ab9eea949ea9-13.html#unique-entry-id-131st August 2008

South Korea is likely to step up efforts to develop energy resources near a cluster of rocks contested between Korea and Japan, newswires report. Observers expect the move could increase the level of tension over the islets, (known as Dokdo and Takeshima in Korean and Japanese respectively.)

The island group, consisting of two main islands with a gross area of some 186,000 metres, is currently controlled by Korea. However the recent publication of a Japanese history text book which referred to them as Japanese territory is reported to have reignited the dispute over their ownership.

Sources in the Korean government have been cited as having said that they intend to emphasise the country’s sovereignty over the rocks by developing gas hydrates. The East Sea, in which the islands are located, is thought to contain one of the world’s largest gas hydrates reserves.

In 1996 the Korean government formed the Dokdo Institute & Dokdo Research & Preservation Association, one of the aims of which is to articulate the Korean position regarding the sovereignty of the islands. According to the institute, Korea’s claim to Dokdo stems at least to 512, when the ancient island kingdom of Usando – which included Dokdo – was annexed to one of the original Kingdoms of Korea.

For its part Japan says that its position that the islands are an “inherent” part of Japan is “inalterable” and argues that Korea illegally occupied the islands in 1954. Japan says that it has repeatedly taken issue with the “Syngman Rhee line,” Korea’s declaration of maritime sovereignty which draws the islands into its fold, and that it has consistently opposed Korean attempts at the exercise of sovereign acts (including the construction of a lighthouse, stationing of military personnel, fishing, and oil and gas exploration). It argues also that it has attempted to refer the issue to the international court in the Hague on several occasions since 1954.

According to the Dokdo institute however, this proposal “must be turned down unequivocally,” describing it as “part of [Japan’s plan] to usurp Korea’s right to the island” and adds that “since Dokdo has historically and legally been a Korean territory, and there is no just reason to request a re-evaluation of its territorial status.” ]]>Malta and Libya at odds over offshore explorationinfo@menasborders.comhome2008-07-08T12:08:26+01:00http://www.menasborders.com/files/c17c853bcf6ae1d38125149f383c97fc-10.html#unique-entry-id-10http://www.menasborders.com/files/c17c853bcf6ae1d38125149f383c97fc-10.html#unique-entry-id-108th July 2008

A note in the annual report of Canadian oil company has revealed that friction continues between Libya and Malta over the sovereignty of undersea resources in the joint off-shore zone, and that an exploration licence awarded by Malta to Heritage Oil International Malta Limited has met with opposition from the Libyan government, which claims that the area involved lies within the Libya Continental Shelf.

Libya's National Oil Company is said to be taking a hard line on what has become a long-running feud concerning the disputed Melita bank. Libya argues that the dividing line in this off-shore zone lies some 192 miles from the Libyan coast and 24 miles from the Maltese coast.

Proceedings in the International Court of Justice in 1985 did not conclude the totality of the maritime dispute between the two countries, not least because Italy has ownership in the eastern part of this basin and was not a party to proceedings.

The Malta Times reports that it is widely regarded within the country that the way through to an agreement between the two countries lies with the prospect of a joint exploration agreement. However, the exploration activities of at least one other company (Pancontinental Oil), licensed by the Maltese government to survey prospects, have been postponed, at the request of the government, pending the resolution of the dispute.


]]>Revocation of Jammu temple land provokes nationwide Indian demonstrationsinfo@menasborders.comhome2008-07-03T11:56:42+01:00http://www.menasborders.com/files/ca8ceea150ecd5f6bb1af1cc93707cb8-7.html#unique-entry-id-7http://www.menasborders.com/files/ca8ceea150ecd5f6bb1af1cc93707cb8-7.html#unique-entry-id-73rd July 2008

The Times of India has reported that several major roads and railways across the country have been blocked by demonstrations against a decision by the state governor of Jammu & Kashmir, to revoke an allotment of a parcel of land to a Hindu Temple. In recent weeks the row has aroused fears of renewed separatist and sectarian conflict in the contested region, with clashes between the two communities leading to injuries.

The decision was made in late May to revoke the allocation of 100 acres of land, on the grounds that it would potentially be inflammatory. But the revocation itself provoked angry responses from the region's Hindu population, which accused the government of attempting to 'appease' Muslims. In addition, some parts of the Muslim population have continued to protest against the allocation despite its reversal.

The Pakistan press agency reported that 'activists of Hindu organizations' had clashed with police in the Jammu region of occupied Kashmir, and that some 28 people had been injured in clashes, while the Times of India has reported that curfews have been 'slapped on' in several areas of Jammu, and that police have resorted to the use of teargas to clear blocked highways.
]]>Serbia on charm offensive at Sharm El-Sheik info@menasborders.comhome2008-06-21T12:03:28+01:00http://www.menasborders.com/files/59f6e3448b34d5a38d8b59671f8d4354-8.html#unique-entry-id-8http://www.menasborders.com/files/59f6e3448b34d5a38d8b59671f8d4354-8.html#unique-entry-id-821st June 2008

While the hot topic at the African Union meeting at Sharm El-Sheik is the legitimacy of Robert Mugabe in presidential elections, other agendas, will of course be discussed on the sidelines. In a statement on its website, the Serbian government has said that the country's foreign minister Vuk Jeremic would be lobbying African statesmen in an effort to prevent further recognition of Kosovo. In May and June, three African nations gave their recognition to the breakaway province. Jeremic argued that it was in the interests of African nations to support Serbian claims to Kosovo, noting that 'African countries are aware that if Kosovo's independence is recognised by a majority of countries in the international community they may also feel the consequences of that because it would create a precedent that may endanger the integrity of other countries. 'He said that 'there are many ethnic movements [in Africa] demanding a higher degree of autonomy, and in some cases independence'.

Despite the return of a pro-EU faction to the Serbian parliament in May, the Kosovo question remains tense. On June 28th Kosovan Serbs created an 'Assembly of the Union of Serb Municipalities' consisting of 45 representatives returned in the Serbian local elections extended to the Serb-dominated regions of Kosovo, north of the Ibar River, and heightening fears of de facto partition between a Serb and Albanian Kosovo.

However the Serbian political community appears equivocal about the wisdom of forming the assembly, which the United Nations Mission in Kosovo declared to be illegal, and which is in danger of becoming a stumbling block in Serbia's relations with the European Union.

On June 20th United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon unveiled plans to reconfigure the structure and profile of the United Nations Interim Administration in Kosovo which, he said, would adjust UNMIK in such a way that the European Union would play 'an enhanced operational role in the rule of law area under a UN umbrella, in line with the original 1999 resolution that established the mission'.

The Secretary-General also confirmed the UN position of 'status-neutrality' on the question of the status of Kosovo.]]>Shetland pensioner to declare “independence” for tiny isleinfo@menasborders.comhome2008-06-19T12:53:30+01:00http://www.menasborders.com/files/26c06713bb3ec0ddc056c770bec7d1b1-1.html#unique-entry-id-1http://www.menasborders.com/files/26c06713bb3ec0ddc056c770bec7d1b1-1.html#unique-entry-id-119th June 2008

A UK newspaper has reported that on June 21st, a former castaway will declare himself to be the head of the new state of Forvik, a breakaway from the United Kingdom and the European Union. The newspaper reports that Stuart Hill, originally from Suffolk, plans to mint his own currency and raise his own flag.

Forvik, which contains only one building (with a tarpaulin roof) is all of 2.5 acres in size and Hill is its only inhabitant, and he will doubtless be seen as the latest in a line of secessionist UK eccentrics which includes King Michael of Sealand (a former WW2 gun platform in the North Sea which was declared “independent” in the 1960s), and Richard Booth, who declared himself to be King of the town of Hay on Wye, which sits on the English Welsh border.

Hill, however, believes his claim to be well founded – and to raise genuine and urgent issues regarding the use of natural resources by the UK government. His claim rests on the existence of a leasing+ arrangement between King Christian of Denmark and the Scottish crown in the mid 1500s which, he says, has left the Shetland Islands in a state of constitutional limbo.

Many Shetlanders feel strongly that the islands should have greater say over the exploitation of their resources. On June 18th, the Shetland News reported that a grouping of local authorities, MPs and MSPs would be “rallying together to push the Crown Estate Commission [which claims an ancient right of ownership of the marine environment as far as the 12 mile limit of the territorial seas] into handing over control of the seabed to Scotland.”

Were the Commission to do so, Scotland and the Shetlands would gain greater control over activities including harbours, marinas, fishfarms and power schemes. The group’s demands fall short, however, of calling for independence.
]]>Ban Ki-Moon to mediate on Gabon/Equatorial Guinea border info@menasborders.comhome2008-06-16T12:05:51+01:00http://www.menasborders.com/files/3f954d20876c6ec00fbb196fc7451336-9.html#unique-entry-id-9http://www.menasborders.com/files/3f954d20876c6ec00fbb196fc7451336-9.html#unique-entry-id-916th June 2008

UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon has opened a mediation session between Gabon and Equatorial Guinea. The maritime dispute between the two countries, now over a quarter of a century old, concerns three contested islets, Mbanie, Cocotiers and Conga, some 100 kilometres from the coast of Gabon, and the United Nations has been actively involved in attempting to mediate between the two countries since 2004.

Presidents Bongo Ondimba of Gabon and Teodoro Obiang Nguema of Equatorial Guinea agreed to resolve the dispute at a summit meeting held in February 2006. However, resolution has not been forthcoming. Both countries appear to be seeking different paths to resolution, with Gabon favouring the creation of a joint development zone, and Equatorial Guinea seeking arbitration by the International Court of Justice in the Hague.

June 16 China and Japan to cooperate on disputed maritime space China and Japan have agreed a way forward regarding disputed areas of the East China Sea. The agreement has already facilitated investment in the area by Japanese oil companies.

A statement released by the Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs said the two countries had “'agreed to conduct cooperation in the transitional period before the delimitation of the relevant waters, march the first step in joint development in the chosen area of the East China Sea, without prejudicing their respective legal positions.'

It said that the countries had reached a principled consensus on the East China Sea issue representing an“ 'important step to realize the common understanding of the leaders of the two countries on making the East China Sea a sea of peace, cooperation and friendship'.

China's Japanese counterpart has yet to publish official confirmation of the pact. However, a spokesman for the Japanese embassy confirmed to Menas Borders that an agreement had been reached.

The Reuters News Agency reported, June 21 that two Japanese oil companies were now considering exploration projects in the East China Sea. It said that Teikoku Oil would be investing in the development of the Chunxiao gas field, and that Nippon Oil Corporation would 'aim to participate in a joint development project'.

Reuters says that under the agreement, Japanese companies will be permitted by China to take a stake in China's development of the Chunxiao field on the Chinese side of the median line between the two countries and which Japan claims as being an international maritime boundary.

China has yet to agree maritime boundaries with any of its neighbours, and has given strong indications that the 'pact' in no way represents a dilution of its claims. The state-sponsored China Daily online cited Liu Nanlai of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences who said the exploration of Chunxiao gas field represented 'China's assertion of sovereign rights in its inalienable sea water'.

China and Japan dispute the methodology by which the maritime boundary ought be delimited. China insists the boundary should be determined by its continental shelf, whereas Japan claims the median line, and while known reserves in the disputed region are modest, the dispute has become a useful bellwether of relations between the two neighbours.

The very fact of the recent pact is a sign that those relations are improving. There is some way to go, however, before the dispute is finally resolved.]]>Eritrea rejects world criticism over Djibouti clashinfo@menasborders.comhome2008-06-13T12:35:15+01:00http://www.menasborders.com/files/c11580dcbc85adb537b99e50eb6f2bd9-4.html#unique-entry-id-4http://www.menasborders.com/files/c11580dcbc85adb537b99e50eb6f2bd9-4.html#unique-entry-id-413th June 2008

Eritrean media has accused the United States government of using clashes on the Eritrean/Djibouti border as part of a plot to create regional uncertainty. The BBC reported June 12 that nine Djiboutians had been killed in border clashes in the Mount Gabla region, the culmination of “weeks of tension” between the two countries.

Council of the UN Security Council president Zalmay Khalilzad read a statement which expressed the Council’s “strong concern about the serious incidents that occurred on June 10 along the frontier,” and condemned “Eritrea’s military action against Djibouti in Ras Doumeira and Doumeira Island,” and urges both parties to work toward a ceasefire. Ras Doumeira is a promontory overlooking the Red Sea.

However, Eritrea has rejected any criticism of its activities on the border, and in a statement the country’s Foreign Ministry said it was “unfortunate” that the U.S. administration was embroiled in “instigating, compounding and inflaming regional conflicts with the purpose of creating turmoil," adding that the US routinely vilified Djibouti. Eritrea also “expressed its discontent” at Arab League condemnation of the alleged border incursion.

The incident confirms the complexity of the current situation in the Horn of Africa. Tensions remain high on the Ethiopia/Eritrean border, following the effective expulsion of the United Nations peace-keeping force, and in Somalia. The United States has on several occasions expressed concerns that Eritrea has backed rebel groups in Somalia, a claim which Eritrea denies. Djibouti, home to both US and French troops, is the main route to the Red Sea for landlocked Ethiopia, with whom Eritrea fought a bitter war between 1998-2000.
]]>No need to monkey with Arctic regional rivals insistinfo@menasborders.comhome2008-05-29T12:36:45+01:00http://www.menasborders.com/files/68e9f22fac111073ee103c0814b53174-5.html#unique-entry-id-5http://www.menasborders.com/files/68e9f22fac111073ee103c0814b53174-5.html#unique-entry-id-529th May 2008

There is no need for a new international legal regime to regulate activities in the Arctic, a five nation panel of Arctic nations declared last week in the Greenland town of Disko, conveying the message that they could be trusted to look after the region themselves once their conflicting claims to the Arctic Continental shelf had been settled under the 1982 Law of the Sea.

Green groups expressed predictable outrage at the meeting, arguing that all claims to the Arctic, like those to the Antarctic, should be put on ice in the interests of humanity and that the retreat of the ice-cap should not be seen as a trigger for the exploitation of greater quantities of climate change accelerating natural resources.

However, there is no obligation in international law to create an exception for the Arctic. In addition to paving the way for greater drilling, a leaner, meaner icecap could significantly reduce shipping costs – particularly in the summer.

Of the five nations present at the meeting one is significantly absent from the signatory list to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. The United States has prevaricated on the grounds that there might be security implications but has given every indication that it may yet have signed up by the end of the year.

Russia caused a stir in 2007 by taking a titanium flag to the ocean floor beneath the North Pole – in a coup described by a spokesperson for Russia’s ministry of foreign affairs as “being on a par to the moon-landing.” The stunt was decried by Arctic neighbours for its “medieval” approach to acquisition, but the Russian foreign ministry denied that it was staking a claim.

In 2001, the Russians submitted their continental shelf claim to the International Commission on the Law of the Continental Shelf – and has been asked to submit more evidence. It bases its Arctic claim on the extension of the Lomonosov Ridge, a prolongation of the continental shelf which, the country argues extends as far as the North Pole.

However, in their opening statement at Iliullisat the Russians said that while the country’s Russian shoreline extended to some 20,000 kilometres, their government understood the “transboundary” characteristics of the region and that “a solution” will require a “unification of efforts” by the states concerned. For the moment then, the Pole itself will remain international territory under the authority of the International Seabed Authority – but activity in the Arctic regions is already hotting up.

Links:
International Seabed Authority
Ilulissat Declaration]]>Singapore takes Pedra Branca – but is it a win-win?info@menasborders.comhome2008-05-23T12:40:23+01:00http://www.menasborders.com/files/f35f203e0f673451d5940a4cf7bf631f-6.html#unique-entry-id-6http://www.menasborders.com/files/f35f203e0f673451d5940a4cf7bf631f-6.html#unique-entry-id-623rd May 2008

The small and contested island of Pedra Branca, or Pulau Batu Puteh belongs to Singapore, the International Court of Justice ruled May 23rd, thus ending years of speculation as to its ownership.

In a manner that has come to be seen as characteristic of recent International Court of Justice rulings, both countries came away from the proceedings “with something,” Malaysia being awarded sovereignty over the Middle Rocks, one of the two other features over which the countries had sought a decision.

So as to keep the issue on the boil, it left the South Ledge undecided. It would, the court said to whichever party successfully claims the territorial sea.

This case is the most significant before the ICJ in a long period of time – and is a useful illustration not only of the complexity of island disputes, but the court’s current thinking on issues relating to the acquisition of territory.

The emphasis in the judgment is very much on the exercise of sovereign acts over title – which is fitting particularly given the myriad complexities of the region’s history. But it is also worth noting that several dissenting opinions were given, indicating that even (or particularly) at the highest levels of the world of international law, consensus is hardly inevitable.

At the heart of the dispute was the question as to whether Malaysia had inherited historic title to the island through the Sultanate of Johor –or whether Singapore – as successor to the United Kingdom, had inherited sovereignty over the island through its continuing maintenance of a lighthouse constructed by the British East India Company in the mid-1950s.

In its judgment, the court held that whereas Johor certainly had possessed historic title, its sovereignty had effectively been lost on account of a number of factors, including a 1953 letter written by a representative of the Sultanate of Johor to the colonial authorities in Singapore, in which the representative said it had no claim over Pedra Branca, and a lack of protest at Singaporean acts upon the island, including the construction of radio relay facilities, which the court argued were tantamount to acquiescence.

Pedra Branca is an uninhabitable granite formation the size of a football pitch. Its name (White Island) is a reference to its appearance subsequent to several centuries’ accumulation of bird droppings.

Nonetheless, since it arose, the Pedra Branca issue has been an irritant to relations between the two countries, which despite their regional rivalry are amongst each other’s most significant trading partners - and have strong economic and cultural ties.

In Singapore, the general response to the ICJ judgment has been “not bad considering.” And in Malaysia, the government has made a determined effort to present the outcome as a “win-win.” However, some opposition MPs have accused the government and the attorney-general’s office of failing to handle the case properly.

On May 28th, the Malaysian press reported an MP (from Johor) as having lambasted those responsible for the handling of the case for having lost a crucial piece of correspondence – a request from the British authorities to the Sultan of Johor for permission to build the Pedra Branca lighthouse. Had the ICJ considered the letter, he argued, the case would be altered.

Menas Borders would suggest that this is not the case. The practice of the court is to weigh all available evidence in the balance, including that relating to historic title, “sovereign acts” and recognition of other states. But one single piece of evidence is seldom sufficient in itself to “tip the scales.”

Links:
ICJ judgment in full
]]>