International Law Review

International Law Review

An Examination of Article 121(3) of the Convention on the Law of the Sea in Light of the South China Sea Arbitration Award with Particular Reference to Iran’s Un-delimited Maritime Boundaries in Persian Gulf

Document Type : academic

Author
Sasan Seyrafi
Assistant Professor of International Law at the University of Tehran, Faculty of Law and Political Science
10.22066/cilamag.2023.703946
Abstract
* The opinions and interpretations adopted in this article are exclusively attributable to the author and in no way represent formal positions of I.R.I. on Iran’s Un-delimited Maritime Boundaries in Persian Gulf.
Article 121 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) pertains to the Regime Islands. While Article 121, paragraph (1) defines the term ‘Island’, paragraph 2 prescribes that an island belonging to a coastal state is entitled to the same maritime zones as the mainland, namely: the territorial sea, the contiguous zone, the exclusive economic zone and the continental shelf. Paragraph (3) of Article 121, however, makes an exception to the rule stated in paragraph (2) and deprives “[r]ocks which cannot sustain human habitation or economic life of their own” from having an exclusive economic zone or continental shelf and thus cannot affect the delimitation of these maritime zones. But many ambiguities in the text of Article 121(3) have created many questions and controversies among legal scholars. The 2016 South China Sea arbitration award marked a turning point in the discussions on Article 121(3), insofar as it provided a comprehensive interpretation of this paragraph. This paper intends to address the following question: given the interpretation of Article 121(3) of UNCLOS in the South China Sea arbitration award, what is the exact meaning of this paragraph? Addressing this question is especially necessary due to the fact that some of the islands relevant to the maritime delimitation between Iran and Kuwait as well as Iran and the UAE may be covered by Article 121(3). The findings of this study suggest that the South China Sea tribunal’s interpretation of Article 121(3), particularly as regards the terms “human habitation” and “economic life of its own”, will deprive many islands of an exclusive economic zone and a continental shelf. Yet, regardless of how the tribunal’s findings are evaluated, it would seem that this interpretation can benefit Iran in its maritime delimitations with Kuwait and the UAE.
Keywords
Article 121 (3) of the Law of the Sea Convention
Island
Rock
Exclusive Economic Zone
Continental Shelf
Maritime Delimitation
Iran
Kuwait
UAE
Subjects

  1. - Books

    1. Balacchino, Godfrey, The Routledge International Handbook of Island Studies, Routledge, 2018.
    2. Bowett, Derek W., The Legal Regime of Islands in International Law, Oceana Publications, 1979.
    3. Bouderi, Charles L.O. and Luciana T. Ricart, The Iran-UAE Gulf Islands Dispute, Brill/Nijhoff, 2018.
    4. Colson, David A. and Robert W. Smith (eds.) International Maritime Boundaries, Martinus Nijhoff, Vol. V, 2005.
    5. Dupuy, Rene-Jean and Daniel Vignes (eds.), Handbook on the New Law of the Sea, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 1991.
    6. Jayewardene, Hiran W., The Regime of Islands in International Law, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 1990.
    7. Lando, Massimo, Maritime Delimitation as A Judicial Process, Cambridge University Press, 2019.
    8. Prescott, Victor and Clive Schofield, The Maritime Political Boundaries of the World, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2005.
    9. Proelss, Alexander (ed.), United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea: A Commentary,H. Beck/Hart/Nomos, 2017.
    10. Schofield, Clive, The Regime of Islands Reframed: Developments in the Definition of Islands under the International, Brill, 2019.
    11. Symmons, Clive, The Maritime Zones of Islands in International Law, Martinus Nijhoff, 1979.
    12. Tanaka, Yushifumi, The International Law of the Sea, Cambridge University Press, 2019.
    13. Walker, George K., Definitions for the Law of the Sea, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2012.
    14. Worster, William Thomas (ed.), United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, Create Space Independent Publishing, 2012.

     

    - Articles

    1. Asghari, Sohrab, “The Unfinished Case of Iran-Kuwait Maritime Boundary Delimitation” in Pirouz Mojtahed-Zadeh (ed.), Boundry Politics and International Boundaries of Iran, Uninversal Publishers, 2006, pp. 295-304.
    2. Bowett, Derek W., “Islands, Rocks, Reefs and Low-Tide Elevations in Maritime Boundary Delimitations”, in Jonathan I. Charney and Lewis M. Alexander (eds.), International Maritime Boundaries, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, vol. I, 1991, pp. 131-151.
    3. Charney, I., “Rocks that Cannot Sustain Human Habitation”, American Journal of International Law, Vol. 93, No. 4, 1999, pp. 863-876.
    4. Evans, Malcolm D. and Reece Lewis, “The regime of islands” in Øystein Jensen (ed.), The Development of the Law of the Sea Convention, Edward Elgar Publishing, 2020, pp. 14-47.
    5. Franckx, Erik “The Regime of Islands and Rocks” in David Joseph Attard (ed.), The IMLI Manual on International Maritime Law, Oxford University Press, Vol. I, 2014, pp. 99-124.
    6. Gau, Michael Sheng-ti, “The Interpretation of Article 121(3) of UNCLOS by the Tribonal for the South China Sea Arbitration: A critique”, Ocean Devlopment & International Law, Vol. 50, No. 1, 2019, pp. 49-69.
    7. Kwiatkowska, Barbara and H. A. Soons, Alfred, “Entitlement to Maritime Areas of Rocks Which Cannot Sustain Human Habitation or Economic Life of Their Own,” Netherlands Yearbook of International Law, Vol. 21, 1990, pp. 139-181.
    8. Pemmaraju, Sreenivasa Rao, "The South China Sea Arbitration (The Philippines v. China): Assessment of the Award on Jurisdiction and Admissibility," Chinese Journal of International Law, Vol. 15, No. 2, 2016, pp. 265–307.
    9. Tanaka, Yushifumi, “Reflections on the Interpretation and Application of Article 121(3) in the South China Sea Arbitraition (Merits)”, Ocean Devlopment & International Law, Vol. 48, No. 3-4, 2017, pp. 366-385.
    10. Townsend-Gault, Ian “IanTownsend-Gault, “Maritime Boundaries in the Arabian Gulf”, in Clive H. Schofield, et al (eds), The Razor’s Edge: International Boundaries and Political Geography, Kluwer Law International, 2002, pp. 223-236.

     

    1. Van Dyke, Jon M. & Robert A. Brooks, “Uninhabited Islands: Their Impact on the Ownership of the Ocean Resources”, Ocean Development & International Law, Vol. 12, No. 3-4, 1983, pp. 265-300.

     

    - Collected Courses of The Hague Academy of International Law

    1. Murphy, Sean D., “International Law Relating to Islands”, Collected Courses of The Hague Academy of International Law, 386, 2017.

     

    - Instruments and Documents

    1. Admiralty Hydrographic Office, Persian Gulf Pilot, 1864.
    2. Agreement between the State of Kuwait and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia Regarding the Submerged Zone Contiguous to the Partitioned Zone, 2 July 2000, reprinted in Law of the Sea Bulletin, No. 46, 2001, pp. 84-6.
    3. Conciliation Commission on the Continental Shelf area between Iceland and Jan Mayen: Report and recommendations to the governments of Iceland and Norway, reprinted in Reports of International Arbitral Awards, Vol. XXVII, 1981.
    4. Decree No. 317 Concerning the Delimitation of the Marine Areas Pertaining to the State of Kuwait and its amendment, 29 October 2014, reprinted in Law of the Sea Bulletin, 89, pp. 20-22.
    5. National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency, Sailing Directions (Enroute): Red Sea and the Persian Gulf, 172, 21st Edition, 2020.
    6. Oode Elfernik, Alex G. “Clarifying Article 121 (3) of the Law of the Sea Convention: The Limits Set by the Nature of International Legal Process”, IBRU Boundary and Security Bulletin, 1998.
    7. Supplementary Agreement to the Agreement between the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and the State of Kuwait on the Partition of the Neutral Zone and to the Agreement … concerning the Submerged Area Adjacent to the Divided Zone, 24 December 2019, reprinted in Law of the Sea Bulletin, No. 104, 2021, pp. 19-27.
    8. United Nations, The Law of the Sea; Regime of Islands Legislative History of Part VIII (Article 121) of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, New York, United Nations Publication, 1988.
    9. US Navy Hydrographic Office, Persian Gulf Pilot, 1st Edition, Washingtion, Government Printing Office, 1920.

     

    - Cases

    1. Maritime Delimitation and Territorial Questions between Qatar and Bahrain (Qatar v. Bahrain), ICJ Reports, 2001, pp. 40-118.
    2. Maritime Delimitation in the Area between Greenland and Jan Mayen (Denmark v. Norway), ICJ Reports, 1993, pp. 38-82.
    3. Maritime Delimitation in the Caribbean Sea and the Pacific Ocean (Costa Rica v. Nicaragua), ICJ Reports, 2018, pp. 139-227.
    4. Sovreinty and Maritime Delimitation in the Red Sea (Eritrea/Yemen), Second Stage: Maritime Delimitation, Award of 17 December 1999, Reports of International Arbitral Awards, Vol. XXII, pp. 335-410.
    5. Territorial and Maritime Dispute (Nicaragua v. Colombia), ICJ Reports, 2012, pp. 624-720.
    6. The South China Sea Arbitration (The Philippines v. The People’s Republic of China), Merits, Award of 12 July 2016, Reports of International Arbitral Awards, Vol. XXXIII, 2020, pp. 153-617.

     

    ج. فرانسه

    1. Dipla, Haritini, Le régime juridique des îles dans le droit international de la mer, Graduate Institute Publications, 1984.
    2. Karagiannis, Symeon, "Rochers qui ne se prêtent pas à l'habitation humaine ou a une vie économique propre et le droit de la mer" Revue Belge de Droit International, Vol. 29, No. 2,1996, pp. 559-624.
    3. Kolb, Robert, “L'interprétation de l'article 121, paragraphe 3, de la convention de Montego Bay sur le droit de la mer: les «rochers qui ne se prêtent pas à l'habitation humaine ou à une vie économique propre...», Annuarre Francais de Droit International, Vol. 40, 1994, pp. 876-909.
    4. Momtaz, Djamchid “La délimitation du plateau continental du Golfe Persique: une entreprise inachevée"in Lilian del Castillo (ed.), Law of the Sea, From Grotius to the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, Brill, 2015, pp. 685-697.

  • Receive Date 05 June 2022
  • Revise Date 17 March 2023
  • Accept Date 17 March 2023