Japan’s outer continental shelf delimitation of truth: the multi-block area not approved
the Japanese advocate the schematic diagram of the outer continental shelf. Mapping Liu Jianping Japan advocates the Outer Continental Shelf in contrast with the Committee endorsed the situation In addition to the hype “buy” the Diaoyu Islands, the Japanese government is also trying to make a fuss on the outer continental shelf application.
the end of April this year, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan and related media reports said, the United Nations Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf (hereinafter referred to as the Committee) adopted the idea of ??Japan’s Outer Continental Shelf, Japan won a total area of ??approximately 310,000 square kilometers of the Outer Continental Shelf , including to the Okinotorishima Reef anchored advocate blocks. Subsequently, the Commission in mid-May announced on its website, the 29th Session of the note by the President “(CLCS/74) introduced at that session the Japanese submission, June 3, the Commission announced Summary of recommendations of the submission. This information for the outside world to restore the truth of the matter: to Okinotorishima reef anchored the delimitation of the continental shelf block did not get the Committee’s recommendations, the Committee recognized red bird the island.Recently
, State Oceanic Administration, Institute for Marine Qiu Jun, “Note by the President of the 29th Session of the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf” and “Japan’s submission recommends that the Executive Summary of these two important documents held authority interpretation reveals truth.
“Note by the President of the 29th Session of the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf” Interpretation
Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf (hereinafter referred to as the Committee) under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea ” established institutions, together with the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, International Seabed Authority and known as the “three bodies of the Convention. The Committee is responsible for the coastal States in the delineation of the outer continental shelf outer limit of the full scientific and legal basis for consideration, then the “recommendations” on the outer continental shelf of coastal States to submit proposition to make a recognized part of the approval or denial decision , the coastal State in accordance with the delineation of its outer limit.
According to the Commission’s “Rules of Procedure, the Committee consists of the Subcommittee is responsible for specific consideration of the submission and writing the draft recommendations, the Committee’s plenary session to discuss the draft proposed amendments and final recommendations. Rules of Procedure and requested the Committee plenary meetings and subcommittee meetings shall be held “closed”, this outside work of the Committee constitute a larger limit. To a certain extent reflects the transparency of its work, the Commission has opened up two channels for the outside world about its work, including: (1) after each session of the plenary meeting of members, the Chairman of the Committee will be released on the progress of the work of the Committee Chairman Help briefed the main conclusions of the plenary session of the Committee discussed the issues and access to the outside world; (2) taking into account the recommendations of the Committee on the submission is only submitted to the submission to the submitting State and the United Nations Secretary-General, in order to the outside world to understand the recommendations made by the Commission, the Commission also published on its website submission summary of the recommendations (hereinafter referred to as the “Summary of Recommendations”).
a Committee to consider Japan’s submission the whole story
in November 2008, Japan submitted to the Committee concerning the delimitation of its continental shelf outer limit of the demarcation case, 7 of the Outer Continental Shelf blocks with a total area of ??about 747,000 square kilometers. Among them, the Japanese red Bird reef anchored advocated the exclusive economic zone of an area of ??about 430,000 square kilometers and about 255,000 square kilometers of the Outer Continental Shelf blocks (southern Kyushu Palau ridge block, referred to as KPR). In addition, Japan advocated the other two block of the Outer Continental Shelf (Shikoku Basin block and South block of Iwo Jima, respectively referred to as the SKB and MIT) associated with the 200-mile line Okinotori reef, an area of ??approximately 177,000 square kilometers and 46,000 square kilometers.
under section 121 of the Convention, Okinotorishima reef can not sustain human habitation or rocks to maintain its own economic activity, can not have the exclusive economic zone and continental shelf. Japan has made a submission, China and South Korea has issued a diplomatic note questioned Okinotorishima reef Exclusive Economic Zone and the Outer Continental Shelf claims, and requested the Commission not to submission involves Okinotori reef part of the action .
in March 2009, the 23rd meeting of the Committee on Japan’s submission of preliminary consideration, consider the concerns of China and the ROK note, the Committee decided not to set up to consider the Sub-Commission of the Japanese submission. At the 24th meeting of the Committee, held in August the same year, the Committee decided to form a subcommittee to proceed with the consideration of Japan’s entire submission, at the same time, the Committee also decided to “not written by the Subcommittee involved in the areas mentioned in the above-mentioned note verbale The recommended action until the Commission decided to do so “. That is, unless the Committee decides otherwise, otherwise it will not discuss, not to modify, not by Okinotorishima reefs block the proposal written by the Sub-Committee draft.
Japan’s submission, the Sub-Commission in line with the Commission’s mandate is limited to Article 76 and Annex II of the Convention does not include interpretation of the Article 121 ” the principle of submission in Japan for up to 2 years of consideration and draft recommendations. Held in August 2011, the 28th session of the Committee received the draft recommendations written by the Japanese submission Subcommittee, and completed the discussion on some of the content.
held in April 2012, the 29th Session of the Commission focused on the 28th meeting failed to complete the SKB and the KPR block the proposal, and adopted by consensus by the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf on 11 2008 the recommendations of the submission made by Japan on the 12th. ” In SKB block, the Committee agreed to the formula line outside the area was placed under the continental shelf. There is an area of ??about 18,000 square kilometers within the SKB block, part of humanity’s common heritage of the international seabed area.
KPR block, the Commission is clear that the position: (Note: in the above-mentioned communication referred to in China, Korea, Japan, note) (Note: the legal status of Okinotori reef problem) is resolved, the Commission is unable to recommend the contents of the block on the southern Kyushu Palau ridge to take action. The decision shows that the Committee recognized Okinotorishima reef island, but not recognized by Japan to red Bird reef base point advocated by the Outer Continental Shelf.
KPR block the formation of the relevant recommendations
24th meeting to determine the areas mentioned in the “not written by the Subcommittee involved in the above note verbale that some of the recommendations to take action until the Board decided to do so “. According to the decision, the Commission, before the open discussion of the relevant block, you must first make a decision to take action, otherwise, the 24th meeting on the decision to temporarily take action will continue to be valid, the Commission will not be able to take action.
Okinotori reef block has three, including KPR is the starting point of the the direct Okinotorishima reef base point, MIT and SKB block Okinotorishima reef, but it comes to the red Bird Reef Line 200 sea miles. For MIT and SKB block, the Committee recommends that the outer limits of the final Okinotori reef 200 nautical miles line decoupling. KPR block completely Okinotorishima reef base point, Okinotorishima reef legal status can not be avoided, first issue to discuss the KPR problem is whether there should be on the proposed South Kyushu Palau ridge block about the contents of the action “to hold the vote.
different views within the Commission, the vote during the course evolved into two votes. The first vote is to determine “Should South Kyushu Palau ridge block the contents of the proposed action,” this issue belongs to the substantive matters or matters of procedure, a second vote in the first vote to determine the , the problem is indeed matters of substance on the basis of a formal vote, a second vote a direct result of the position of the Commission not to act.
(a) vote on the substantive and procedural matters
the President of the instructions referred to in paragraph 19 of “Some people raised the matter for substantive or procedural issues. In this regard, the President ruled that this is the substantive issues, two-thirds majority decision of this finding is controversial, followed by 8 votes to a simple majority of seven votes, 1 abstention able to maintain . ” This is a description of the first vote.
Committee decided the matter can be divided into two types of substantive issues and procedural matters, the provisions of the Rules of Procedure, the decision on all matters of substance should be present and voting members two-thirds majority , decisions on all matters of procedure, should be the majority of the members present and voting, “” Rules of Procedure and did not give the definition to define the substantive and procedural matters, but the requirement if there is a particular issue procedural matters or matters of substance shall be the Chairman of the Committee on ruling on the objections raised by this ruling should be immediately put to the vote, unless overruled by a majority of the members present and voting, the President’s ruling shall continue to be valid.
accordance with the above provisions, “Should South Kyushu Palau ridge block the contents of the proposed action,” this issue are matters of procedure, half of the voting members agree, the Commission You can decide to take action. If the problem belongs to the matters of substance, you need two-thirds majority of voting members, the Committee can decide to take action. Therefore, the problem belongs to the vote of the substantive matters or matters of procedure, would have a direct and important impact for the follow-up to the vote on whether action should be taken. After the President’s ruling, and vote on the President’s ruling to finalize “Should South Kyushu Palau ridge block the contents of the proposed action,” this issue belongs to the substantive matters related proposals need to be two-thirds The majority of the votes to get through.
(b) corresponds to a formal vote of whether to take action to
the President of the instructions in paragraph 19 references to “Committee on the draft recommendations with the South Kyushu Palau ridge blocks the action of the vote on the proposal, the proposal did not get two-thirds majority support. Thus, the second vote on the proposal the Committee should be on the South Kyushu Palau ridge block the contents of the draft recommendation to take action “. The first vote has identified this issue are matters of substance, therefore, the proposal to get through there must be two-thirds majority support. The result of the vote, 16 members attending the meeting, there are 5 people support the proposal and eight against the proposal, and another three abstained. The vote results show that the majority of the members do not support the Commission on the the KPR block action from the side of the Japanese media on the Commission endorsed the Okinotorishima reef islands reported is nonsense.
29th meeting decided that the importance of
29th meeting decided to put forward for the Committee to take action on the KPR part of the block very strict pre- conditions in the 24th meeting decided on the basis of significant progress. Comparison of the two sessions on the core content of the decision by the Okinotorishima reef can be found in the logic is similar: (1) The decision made clear that temporarily action; (2) The two decisions are clearly to take action after the condition. The difference is that the 24th session decided that the conditions on the subsequent action is very loose, and the 29th Session of the terms of decision is very clear and strict. The 24th session on the subsequent action by the condition that “until the Board decided to do so”. In other words, whether to take action depending on the Commission itself, as long as the Commission is willing, it can make recommendations related to block. 29 session, decide on subsequent action is: the problem is resolved mentioned in the note of Japan and South Korea. Japan and South Korea note referred to the matter a number of which is the core of a different understanding of the legal status of Okinotorishima reef. In other words, only after the issue is resolved Okinotori reef of the island is a reef, the Committee on the KPR block further action.
through some kind of program has been widely recognized identified the Okinotorishima Reef is a reef, the Board may direct negation of KPR block; if recognized Okinotorishima reef island, the Committee may be under consideration by the Subcommittee a result, the the KPR block and make recommendations. The moment, whether the relevant provisions of the Convention, or academia, the mainstream view, or the relevant international practice, do not support Okinotorishima reef islands. Therefore, the Committee decided to basically dispel Japan “refers to the reef island” in an attempt to use the Outer Continental Shelf to strengthen its Okinotorishima reef exclusive economic zone and the continental shelf advocate wishful thinking.
In general, the decision of the Committee at its 29th session of the coastal State over the extended continental shelf of the powerful to combat, is conducive to safeguarding the interests of all mankind the international seabed area, conducive to maintaining the system of the Convention, serious and marine and justice, and profound impact on the world pattern of maritime delimitation.
“Japan’s submission recommends that the executive summary of Interpretation
one on the the KPR block Conclusion
summary of the recommendations are generally divided into six parts, in turn are the “base case”, an integral part of the submission, consideration of the submission of the basic principles of “block proposal”, “” and Annex. Among them, the first four parts of the general use of formatting language description, and parts of the summary of the recommendations are essentially similar. Each block the proposal, “and” maps “the two parts is the core content of the summary of the recommendations. In its concluding observations of the Committee in these two parts of the content.
“block proposal” advocated by the Outer Continental Shelf blocks according to the submission-by-block gives the conclusions. Summary of the Recommendations of the Japanese submission, for example, Japan has advocated a total of seven of the Outer Continental Shelf blocks the date of the submission recommended that the summary of each block the proposal is divided into seven blocks, respectively, describe the conclusion of the deliberations of the Committee on the block .
Typically, each block the proposal on the content and structure of each block is the same, respectively, including the block where the regional geology and geography Profiles, “a natural extension of the land mass and the outer continental shelf rights “toe point OK,” the outer edge of the continental margin to determine the “continental shelf outer limits of the five elements.
submission summary of the recommendations, in addition to the KPR block, other blocks of content, including the above-mentioned elements, while the KPR block proposals only six paragraphs, and do not involve the above elements. Can be seen only from the content and structure, with other blocks on the conclusion of the KPR, completely different. The reason is that KPR is entirely in accordance with Okinotori reef anchored advocated the Outer Continental Shelf blocks, Okinotori reef itself, the legal status of seriously questioned by the international community, and the Commission itself does not have the judgment Okinotorishima is the island or reef terms of reference. The result is that the Commission is unable to the KPR block to scrutinize proposals.
further from the content point of view, the Committee on the the KPR block its concluding observations, including six paragraphs, the proposed paragraph 15-20 of the summary of the contents of each paragraph: Paragraph 15: The Committee Recalling the decision of the 24th session, that the Commission should not Okinotorishima reef block the proposal written by the Sub-Committee to take action, unless the Committee decides otherwise; Paragraph 16: The Committee noted that in April 2012, China, South Korea , Japan and three countries respectively for Okinotorishima block again submitted to the Committee a note; paragraph 17: The Committee quoted the Chinese part of the contents of the note, “the dispute essentially red Bird reef can have the exclusive economic zone or continental shelf dispute is related to marine space should belong to the coastal State under the jurisdiction of, or attributable to the international community and the dispute “; part of paragraph 18: The Committee quoted a South Korean note on the legal status of Okinotori reef that a dispute exists”; in paragraph 19: The Committee quoted note part of the “Japan believes that the relevant legal documents, including the Convention, the Convention on accessories, and Committee on Rules of Procedure”, China and South Korea on the Commission should not hedge bird reef block gives the recommended requirements are not legal basis. “Paragraph 20: the Committee on the KPR block conclusions embodied in this period. The paragraph reads as follows: “The Committee consider whether the draft recommendations of the Sub-committee that wrote the block of South Kyushu Palau ridge (KPR) to take action, and decided not to take action to the Committee that the proposed draft Central South Kyushu Palau ridge take action on the contents of the block (KPR), until the note described the issue is resolved. “
the conclusion of the above Committee on the KPR block, we can see very clearly, the Commission has not approved Okinotorishima island, but not recognized by Japan to red bird reef anchored the Outer Continental Shelf advocate.
Two About SKB block proposal
KPR blocks outside of the continental shelf of the date of the submission only Okinotorishima reef anchored proposition block, and the recommendations of the Committee on the KPR block that best describes the position of the Committee on the Okinotorishima reef. However, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan and some Japanese media have deliberately avoided the recommendations of the Committee on the KPR block while trying to find the so-called basis for their claims from the recommendations of the Committee on the block of SKB.Okinotorishima reef
the SKB block is located in the north, according to the claims of Japan, “Japan’s land mass in the region’s natural extension to include the eastern part of Izu – Bonin island arc and the western East China Sea ridge and Kyushu – Palau ridge and the region on the island located in the eastern Izu – sulfur ridge on Bird Island, North East Island, the East China Sea Ridge, red Daito Island and Kyushu – Palau ridge Okinotorishima reef so on. ” Part of the Committee by the SKB block advocates of the Outer Continental Shelf, the Japanese Foreign Ministry who accordingly infer that the Committee recognized Okinotorishima reef based on the Outer Continental Shelf proposition. Their logic is: because the Commission recognized the Kyushu – Palau ridge, SKB block the internal part of the continental shelf of Japan, and Okinotorishima reef is the only exposed surface of the water on the reefs in Kyushu – Palau ridge, therefore , can be inferred Committee recognized Okinotorishima reef islands, and can be argued that the Outer Continental Shelf.
the Japanese Foreign Ministry this logic is completely absurd. The one hand, the Japanese Foreign Ministry is trying to evade the conclusions of the Committee on the wrong KPR block action. This conclusion the Commission on the legal status of the Okinotori reef not holding the position not to take action on the proposition to the of Okinotorishima Reef anchored outside the continental shelf. The other hand, the conclusions of the Committee on the SKB block is in fact clear that the Commission has to the SKB block Okinotorishima reef decoupling. In other words, the Commission approved SKB block Okinotorishima reef no.
first from a technical point of view. The SKB block of the continental shelf outer limit of the derived rules based on the extrapolation of the toe point 60 nautical miles. Summary of Recommendations Figure 27 clearly shows that the toe points approved by the Committee to generate the SKB block external boundaries. It can be seen, nothing to do with these toe point and Okinotorishima reef. Second point of view from the map. Summary of Recommendations Figure 21, the Committee cited Japan’s submission advocates Figure. Which, claimed by Japan. The SKB blocks were originally Okinotori reef 200 nautical miles line the southern boundary. Figure 27 The Committee recommends that the maps produced by the Commission and explain. In the figure, the Commission intends to go in addition to the 200 sea miles the SKB block south of Okinotori reef line. This is a manifestation of the Committee hedge bird reef island status does not hold the position. From the formulation point of view. The Commission’s proposed SKB block, referred to in paragraph 158 of the Okinotori reef is completely quote the Japanese advocate, not the Commission’s position. The Japanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan claims is the Committee’s recommendations.
three of Japan’s Outer Continental Shelf approved by the Committee advocates
summary of the recommendations, claimed by Japan. Seven blocks, four blocks (Dadong (ODR), South Iwo Jima blocks (MIT), Shikoku Basin blocks (SKB), Ogasawara sea sets of blocks (OGP)) segment approved of by the Committee approved a total area of ??about 290,000 square kilometers, accounting for about Japan argued for 39% of the total area, 4 blocks and Okinotorishima reef; block two blocks (the Motegi plateaux Block MGS Minami Torishima MTS) is a complete denial by the Commission; advocated Okinotorishima reef anchored block of South Kyushu Palau ridge (KPR), the Commission decided not to take action.share: