138
Y. Ishii
zones) of maritime jurisdiction in the history of the law of the sea, based entirely on
the on grounds of certain state’s ‘special circumstances.
20 ’
It was indeed the independence of a number of archipelagic states during the 1970s
to the early 1980s that shifted the arguments regarding the status of the archipelago.
During the colonial era, their former suzerain states did not consider adopting a
special regime for the group of islands. The Philippines and Indonesia acquired their
independence immediately after World War II, and established the archipelagic baseline in early stage. They became the two most important countries which supported
this special regime under UNCLOS.
Daniel Patrick O’Connell in his paper published in 1971, thoroughly examined
the pre-UNCLOS state practices concerning archipelagoes. He concludes that “All
of the actual and potential archipelagic claimants are new States, preoccupied with
their own development and local situations, and all of their predecessors were imperial Powers who subordinated local interests to considerations of the freedom of
the seas, open communications and access to the riches of the world.
21 ” However,
for the historical and political reasons, “it would be unreasonable to suppose that
resistance to archipelagic claims can be successfully persisted in over a long period
in face of successful assertion and widespread political support.
22 ” Therefore, he
claimed that the only progressive approach is to seek to “integrate the archipelagic
principle in existing international law in such a way as to accommodate the interests
of the archipelagic State without disproportionately affecting the interests of other
States and of the world at large.
23 ” Anand, in his article in 1979, similarly argued
that imperialist powers that possessed those islands “subordinated local interests to
considerations of the freedom of the seas.
24 ”
Against this background, during UNCLOS III, one of the goals of which was to
acquire an equitable distribution of the natural resources, the archipelagic groups
consisting of Fiji, Indonesia, Mauritius, the Philippines strongly claimed for the
creation of a special regimes for them. They proposed the criteria which would at
least fit their geographical configuration and satisfy their national interest mainly
because that was what mattered for them.
Sofia Kopela explains that these archipelagic states were to secure their fragile
independence, because such a new regime was interconnected with the issue of
economic development, the exploitation of their natural resources and subsequently
with the decolonization process.
25 The issue of archipelagic states was dissociated
20 Ibid. See also James Crawford, ‘Islands as Sovereign Nations’ (1989) 38 International &
Comparative Law Quarterly 297.
21 Daniel Patrick O’Connell, ‘Mid-ocean archipelagos in international law’ (1971) 45 British Year
Book of International Law 1, 75.
22 Ibid.
23 Ibid.
24 Ram Prakash Anand, ‘Mid-Ocean Archipelagos in International Law: Theory and Practice’
(1979) 19 Indian Journal of International Law 247. See also Jorge R. Coquia, ‘Development of
the Archipelagic Doctrine as a Recognized Principles of International Law’ (1983) 58 Philippine
Law Journal 13.
25 Kopela, 26.
Y. Ishii
zones) of maritime jurisdiction in the history of the law of the sea, based entirely on
the on grounds of certain state’s ‘special circumstances.
20 ’
It was indeed the independence of a number of archipelagic states during the 1970s
to the early 1980s that shifted the arguments regarding the status of the archipelago.
During the colonial era, their former suzerain states did not consider adopting a
special regime for the group of islands. The Philippines and Indonesia acquired their
independence immediately after World War II, and established the archipelagic baseline in early stage. They became the two most important countries which supported
this special regime under UNCLOS.
Daniel Patrick O’Connell in his paper published in 1971, thoroughly examined
the pre-UNCLOS state practices concerning archipelagoes. He concludes that “All
of the actual and potential archipelagic claimants are new States, preoccupied with
their own development and local situations, and all of their predecessors were imperial Powers who subordinated local interests to considerations of the freedom of
the seas, open communications and access to the riches of the world.
21 ” However,
for the historical and political reasons, “it would be unreasonable to suppose that
resistance to archipelagic claims can be successfully persisted in over a long period
in face of successful assertion and widespread political support.
22 ” Therefore, he
claimed that the only progressive approach is to seek to “integrate the archipelagic
principle in existing international law in such a way as to accommodate the interests
of the archipelagic State without disproportionately affecting the interests of other
States and of the world at large.
23 ” Anand, in his article in 1979, similarly argued
that imperialist powers that possessed those islands “subordinated local interests to
considerations of the freedom of the seas.
24 ”
Against this background, during UNCLOS III, one of the goals of which was to
acquire an equitable distribution of the natural resources, the archipelagic groups
consisting of Fiji, Indonesia, Mauritius, the Philippines strongly claimed for the
creation of a special regimes for them. They proposed the criteria which would at
least fit their geographical configuration and satisfy their national interest mainly
because that was what mattered for them.
Sofia Kopela explains that these archipelagic states were to secure their fragile
independence, because such a new regime was interconnected with the issue of
economic development, the exploitation of their natural resources and subsequently
with the decolonization process.
25 The issue of archipelagic states was dissociated
20 Ibid. See also James Crawford, ‘Islands as Sovereign Nations’ (1989) 38 International &
Comparative Law Quarterly 297.
21 Daniel Patrick O’Connell, ‘Mid-ocean archipelagos in international law’ (1971) 45 British Year
Book of International Law 1, 75.
22 Ibid.
23 Ibid.
24 Ram Prakash Anand, ‘Mid-Ocean Archipelagos in International Law: Theory and Practice’
(1979) 19 Indian Journal of International Law 247. See also Jorge R. Coquia, ‘Development of
the Archipelagic Doctrine as a Recognized Principles of International Law’ (1983) 58 Philippine
Law Journal 13.
25 Kopela, 26.