be carried out on a case-by-case basis, on the grounds of equity and taking into
account all the relevant circumstances of a concrete scenario.
Analysing specifically the case of Brazil, some distinguishing circumstances
stand out: (i) it is not reasonable to expect or demand from the country a behaviour
that no other State displays; (ii) in the official languages of the Convention, there is
enough interpretative margin to defend the application of Article 121(2) to the
Belmonte Island, even if such application should be questioned by other States or
by legal scholarship, which does not seem to be the case thus far; (iii) Brazil is not
involved in maritime boundary disputes surrounding the Archipelago (the 200-mile
zone included)
72 ; (iv) Brazil has been increasingly engaged in the devise of environmental protection policies for that region, achieving considerable geopolitical
influence in the South Atlantic through cooperation with other coastal States; and
finally, (v) if the situation changes in such a way that the status of Belmonte as an
island entitled to an EEZ and continental shelf is legally questioned, Brazilian State
practice should offer grounds for reaffirming such status. The stance adopted by
Brazil is not a “jurisdictional crept” and is consistent with the country’s historical
efforts to apply environmental and scientifically friendly measures to waters under
national jurisdiction.
References
Centro de Excelência para o Mar Brasileiro (CEMBRA) (2012) O Brasil e o mar no século XXI:
Relatório aos tomadores de decisão do País, 2nd edn. BHMN, Rio de Janeiro
Charney JI (1999) Rocks that cannot sustain human habitation. Am J Int Law 93(4):863–878
Elferink AO (2016) The South China Sea Arbitration’s Interpretation of Article 121(3) of the
LOSC: A Disquieting First. JCLOS Blog. Available via http://site.uit.no/jclos/files/2016/09/
The-South-China-Sea-Arbitrations-Interpretation-of-Article-1213-of-the-LOSC-A-Disquiet
ing-First.pdf
Franckx E (2014) The regime of islands and rocks. In: Attard D, Fitzmaurice M, Gutiérrez N (eds)
The IMLI manual on international maritime law, volume I, the law of the sea. Oxford University
Press, Oxford, pp 99–124
García-Amador FV (1974) The Latin American contribution to the development of the law of the
sea. Am J Int Law 68(33):33–50
Goldsmith J, Posner E (2005) The limits of international law. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Jayakumar S, Koh T, Beckman R (2014) The South China sea disputes and the law of the sea.
Edward Elgar, Cheltenham
Kraska J (2011) Maritime power and the law of the sea. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Kwiatkowska B (1991) Creeping jurisdiction beyond 200 miles in the light of the 1982 law of the
sea convention and state practice. Ocean Dev Int Law 22(2):153–187
Kwiatkowska B, Soons A (1990) Entitlement to maritime areas of rocks which cannot sustain
human habitation or economic life of their own. Neth Yearb Int Law:139–151
72 In fact, all post-UNCLOS disputes concerning the regime of islands deal at some point with
maritime delimitation, except in the case of the South China Sea. After all, Beijing had made an
exception in line with Part XV, Section III of UNCLOS regarding jurisdiction over maritime
boundary disputes.
284
V. Alencar Mayer Feitosa Ventura and E. Cavalcanti Mello Filho
account all the relevant circumstances of a concrete scenario.
Analysing specifically the case of Brazil, some distinguishing circumstances
stand out: (i) it is not reasonable to expect or demand from the country a behaviour
that no other State displays; (ii) in the official languages of the Convention, there is
enough interpretative margin to defend the application of Article 121(2) to the
Belmonte Island, even if such application should be questioned by other States or
by legal scholarship, which does not seem to be the case thus far; (iii) Brazil is not
involved in maritime boundary disputes surrounding the Archipelago (the 200-mile
zone included)
72 ; (iv) Brazil has been increasingly engaged in the devise of environmental protection policies for that region, achieving considerable geopolitical
influence in the South Atlantic through cooperation with other coastal States; and
finally, (v) if the situation changes in such a way that the status of Belmonte as an
island entitled to an EEZ and continental shelf is legally questioned, Brazilian State
practice should offer grounds for reaffirming such status. The stance adopted by
Brazil is not a “jurisdictional crept” and is consistent with the country’s historical
efforts to apply environmental and scientifically friendly measures to waters under
national jurisdiction.
References
Centro de Excelência para o Mar Brasileiro (CEMBRA) (2012) O Brasil e o mar no século XXI:
Relatório aos tomadores de decisão do País, 2nd edn. BHMN, Rio de Janeiro
Charney JI (1999) Rocks that cannot sustain human habitation. Am J Int Law 93(4):863–878
Elferink AO (2016) The South China Sea Arbitration’s Interpretation of Article 121(3) of the
LOSC: A Disquieting First. JCLOS Blog. Available via http://site.uit.no/jclos/files/2016/09/
The-South-China-Sea-Arbitrations-Interpretation-of-Article-1213-of-the-LOSC-A-Disquiet
ing-First.pdf
Franckx E (2014) The regime of islands and rocks. In: Attard D, Fitzmaurice M, Gutiérrez N (eds)
The IMLI manual on international maritime law, volume I, the law of the sea. Oxford University
Press, Oxford, pp 99–124
García-Amador FV (1974) The Latin American contribution to the development of the law of the
sea. Am J Int Law 68(33):33–50
Goldsmith J, Posner E (2005) The limits of international law. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Jayakumar S, Koh T, Beckman R (2014) The South China sea disputes and the law of the sea.
Edward Elgar, Cheltenham
Kraska J (2011) Maritime power and the law of the sea. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Kwiatkowska B (1991) Creeping jurisdiction beyond 200 miles in the light of the 1982 law of the
sea convention and state practice. Ocean Dev Int Law 22(2):153–187
Kwiatkowska B, Soons A (1990) Entitlement to maritime areas of rocks which cannot sustain
human habitation or economic life of their own. Neth Yearb Int Law:139–151
72 In fact, all post-UNCLOS disputes concerning the regime of islands deal at some point with
maritime delimitation, except in the case of the South China Sea. After all, Beijing had made an
exception in line with Part XV, Section III of UNCLOS regarding jurisdiction over maritime
boundary disputes.
284
V. Alencar Mayer Feitosa Ventura and E. Cavalcanti Mello Filho