[OSM-talk] 12nm territorial borders - useful or rubbish?

M∡rtin Koppenhoefer dieterdreist at gmail.com
Mon Feb 14 18:01:31 GMT 2011


2011/2/14 M∡rtin Koppenhoefer <dieterdreist at gmail.com>:
> I agree that there is also some rubbish, e.g. this:
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/50899241
>
> nobody can rightfully claim its "territory" (=admin_level 2) to be
> extended by 200 nautic miles, and also the linked wikipedia article
> doesn't imply this. Also it doesn't seem that the baseline was used to
> calculate this border.


Well, in this case also the CIA factbook confirms the Liberian Claim
for the 200 nautic miles:
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/fields/2106.html

Their claim seems to be contradicting the UNCLOS (United Nations
Convention on the Law of the Sea) treaty though (cited from the CIA):
"territorial sea - the sovereignty of a coastal state extends beyond
its land territory and internal waters to an adjacent belt of sea,
described as the territorial sea in the UNCLOS (Part II); this
sovereignty extends to the air space over the territorial sea as well
as its underlying seabed and subsoil; every state has the right to
establish the breadth of its territorial sea up to a limit not
exceeding 12 nautical miles; the normal baseline for measuring the
breadth of the territorial sea is the mean low-water line along the
coast as marked on large-scale charts officially recognized by the
coastal state; the UNCLOS describes specific rules for archipelagic
states."

cheers,
Martin



More information about the talk mailing list