international regime by making the Belmonte Island habitable, so that the islands
could generate an EEZ and continental shelf of their own.
4
In the meantime, in 2016 an international arbitration award related to the dispute
in the South China Sea (SCS) opposing the Philippines and China has detailed, as
never before in International Law, the legal regime of islands.
5 However, if international State practice has been heterogeneous and doctrine has been far from
uncontroversial, after the ruling, in several disputed points, the regime did not
become less hazy. Briefly, the decision determines inherent qualifications of the
requirement of “human habitation”, such as the possibility of a group of people
permanently inhabiting the island and being capable of providing food, drinking
water and shelter without immense continental assistance.
This chapter attempts to answer the question of whether the Arbitral Tribunal’s
interpretation on “sustain[ing] human habitation or economic life of their own”
6 may
jeopardize Brazilian claims to an EEZ and continental shelf surrounding the ASPSP.
The analysis of the award, in light of the Brazilian territorial claims to the Archipelago, becomes even more important following the fresh creation of gigantic
marine protected areas in the Archipelago’s EEZ, due to the fact that Brazil necessitates clear and uncontested jurisdiction in that zone.
Therefore, this chapter aims to: situate Brazil’s stance amid possible controversies
prompted by recent international jurisprudence; ascertain the consequences of recent
international judicial decisions and arbitration awards on the legal regime of islands;
and peek into the future of Brazil’s strategy for the Archipelago. For that, the chapter
focuses initially on the Brazilian practice regarding the EEZ, so as to level the
ground for a discussion on the PROARQUIPÉLAGO Program and its goals to
inhabit the Belmonte Island, enhance scientific research in the region, and ultimately
to adjust the Archipelago to the regime of islands prescribed in the Montego Bay
Convention. The third item analyses the main arguments of the South China Sea
award concerning the object under examination, and finally, the chapter systematizes
the findings from previous items, in order to analyse the Brazilian jurisdictional
assertions over the São Pedro and São Paulo Archipelago and the impact of recent
international jurisprudence on the Brazilian position, domestic legislation and
“oceanopolitical” interests.
7
4 Brazilian Interministerial Commission for Marine Resources. Resolution n
001/96/CIRM. The
PROARQUIPÉLAGO is part of the Sectoral Plans on Marine Resources (PSRM).
5 South China Sea Arbitration (Republic of the Philippines v. People’s Republic of China). Award of
12 July 2016.
6 SCS Award, 2016, paras. 473 to 511.
7 The expression “oceanopolitics” is employed, among others, by MORE (2012), pp. 232–248.
15 The Legal Status of the São Pedro and São Paulo Archipelago in Light of Article. . .
265
could generate an EEZ and continental shelf of their own.
4
In the meantime, in 2016 an international arbitration award related to the dispute
in the South China Sea (SCS) opposing the Philippines and China has detailed, as
never before in International Law, the legal regime of islands.
5 However, if international State practice has been heterogeneous and doctrine has been far from
uncontroversial, after the ruling, in several disputed points, the regime did not
become less hazy. Briefly, the decision determines inherent qualifications of the
requirement of “human habitation”, such as the possibility of a group of people
permanently inhabiting the island and being capable of providing food, drinking
water and shelter without immense continental assistance.
This chapter attempts to answer the question of whether the Arbitral Tribunal’s
interpretation on “sustain[ing] human habitation or economic life of their own”
6 may
jeopardize Brazilian claims to an EEZ and continental shelf surrounding the ASPSP.
The analysis of the award, in light of the Brazilian territorial claims to the Archipelago, becomes even more important following the fresh creation of gigantic
marine protected areas in the Archipelago’s EEZ, due to the fact that Brazil necessitates clear and uncontested jurisdiction in that zone.
Therefore, this chapter aims to: situate Brazil’s stance amid possible controversies
prompted by recent international jurisprudence; ascertain the consequences of recent
international judicial decisions and arbitration awards on the legal regime of islands;
and peek into the future of Brazil’s strategy for the Archipelago. For that, the chapter
focuses initially on the Brazilian practice regarding the EEZ, so as to level the
ground for a discussion on the PROARQUIPÉLAGO Program and its goals to
inhabit the Belmonte Island, enhance scientific research in the region, and ultimately
to adjust the Archipelago to the regime of islands prescribed in the Montego Bay
Convention. The third item analyses the main arguments of the South China Sea
award concerning the object under examination, and finally, the chapter systematizes
the findings from previous items, in order to analyse the Brazilian jurisdictional
assertions over the São Pedro and São Paulo Archipelago and the impact of recent
international jurisprudence on the Brazilian position, domestic legislation and
“oceanopolitical” interests.
7
4 Brazilian Interministerial Commission for Marine Resources. Resolution n
001/96/CIRM. The
PROARQUIPÉLAGO is part of the Sectoral Plans on Marine Resources (PSRM).
5 South China Sea Arbitration (Republic of the Philippines v. People’s Republic of China). Award of
12 July 2016.
6 SCS Award, 2016, paras. 473 to 511.
7 The expression “oceanopolitics” is employed, among others, by MORE (2012), pp. 232–248.
15 The Legal Status of the São Pedro and São Paulo Archipelago in Light of Article. . .
265