RUPEE NEWS: Recording History, Narrating Archives, Strategic Intellibrief Analysis: Noticias de Rupia | Nouvelles de Roupie | Rupiennachrichten | новости рупии | 卢比新闻 | Rupi Nyheter | ルピーニュース | اخبار روپیہ

Noticias de Rupia | Nouvelles de Roupie | Rupiennachrichten | новости рупии | 卢比新闻  | Roepienieuws | Rupi Nyheter | ルピーニュース  | Notizie di Rupia |  PAKISTAN LEDGER | پاکستاني کھاتا | Moin Ansari | معین آنصآرّی | DefensebriefsIntellibriefs Translate to: RSS feed: | RUPEE NEWS | February 6th, 2008 | Moin Ansari |  معین آنصآرّی | اخبار روپیہ  |

The new generation is forgetting the disputes and accepts them as the status quo. Pakistan has disputes with India. India has disputes with all her neighbors, mainly becuase India wants to slowly take away territory from the neighbors and absorb them into a huge country called Akhand Bharat.

This is the “Pakistan” that existed 5000 years ago as the “Indus Valley”

This is the Pakistan the Muslims of the Subcontinent struggled for, asked for and agreed to the Pakistan that has finally evolved. Inch by inch, Bharat is eroding Pakistan. Lines have to be drawn.

Pakistan and India have major border disputes in Kashmir, Siachin, and “Sir Creek”. There is extensive material with maps and graphics on each one of these border disputes on this site. There is a dearth of graphics and maps in the Pakistani media. We over emphasize maps.

India has unresolved boundary disputes with all her neighbors. On every occasion, and on every matter, she has refused to compromise, and resolve matters that could have been solved in minutes. Even after agreements have been made, the final drafts have been rejected. With the result that relations sour and peace is threatened. India with its vast coastline should not even make this an issue. A 10 x 25 mile area keeps peace hostage?

Pakistan resolved her boundaries with China in the early fifties, and gave up land for peace. Similarly with Iran, Pakistan gave up land to Iran to firm up a robust relationship. In return Pakistan enjoys a peace dividend with both the countries.

SUMMARY OF SIR CREEK DISPUTE

The issues in Sir Creek revolve around the following major points:

1. The issue is about Sir Creek, who owns it and where the boundary between Sindh and Gujrat lies.
2. The 1914 maps  and the boundary depicted on them. India consider the “green line on the agreed upon map as a “ribbon”. Pakistan considers the line as the boundary.
3. The boundary of Sindh and Gujrat as delineated in the maps of 1914
4. Navigable rivers have mid stream boundaries
5. Pakistan considers the Sir Creek estuary as non-navigable. India considers it as navigable
6. A mid-stream solution would involve Pakistan losing 250 square miles of territory. A Eastern boundary solution would mean a loss of 250 square miles for India.
7. The Maritime boundaries have to be defined by both countries. Details of the Maritime Laws (http://gis.esri.com/library/userconf/proc99/proceed/papers/pap938/p938.htm)
8. The division of the Economic zone depends on the continental shelf. The part of the ocean floor that borders the continents is called the continental shelf. The continental shelf stretches for up to 124 miles into the Indian Ocean.
9. If there is oil in these marshlands, there is a possible economic impact to both India and Pakistan.

Location of Sir Creek

Sir Creek vicinity

British Empire

1893 map of Gujrat and Sindh. This map is similar to the 1914 map which once found will be placed here.

The Sir Creek is an estuary on the Indus delta

The mid stream (Indian position in blue) vs. East bank (Pakistani position in red) position.

Another map showing Pakistani position in green line on the East Coast of the creek.

The positions of India and Pakistan on the Sir Creek estuary.

India has a coastline 7,417 km long, out of which the Gujarat state has 1,663 km, which is one-third of the entire coastline, which makes Gujarat the principal maritime state of India. Because of a rich delta, Gujarat has the best fishing, and the Gulf of Kutch has the best fish known in India. Next to Gujarat is Pakistan, and there are no agreed maritime frontiers between the two. The Maritime Zones Act of India 1976 and 1981 under which the fishermen are caught and punished doesn’t conform to the United Nations Convention on Law of the Seas (UNCLOS), which India has signed. Pakistan is guilty of the same non-conformity.

The rival geographies of India and Pakistan are symbolised by the rival cartographies relating to Sir Creek, which is a 100 km long estuary in the marshes of the Rann of Kutch between Gujarat and Sindh. Sir Creek is not a flowing creek but a tidal channel which has no officially demarcated boundary separating Pakistan and India. Till 1954 there was free movement across the Creek. Then came the issue of finding out where the border lay. And this border was also to decide where in the Arabian Sea the line will be drawn separating Indian waters from Pakistani waters.

Till these two issues are resolved, the two countries cannot set up their continental shelves up to 350 nautical miles and describe their economic zones up to 200 nautical miles. The deadline for doing so falls in 2009. This is the area where the two could find oil and gas deposits. They can’t exploit these deposits without first sorting out the maritime boundary dispute. And the line that is drawn to describe the national frontier along Sir Creek will decide who gets how much of the sea off the Gulf of Kutch. That explains why there is no ‘give and take’ in the bilateral negotiations.

The western side of Sir Creek is under Pakistani control, and there are naval installations on the Indian side. Pakistan owns 16 creeks of Sindh and lays claim to the 17th called Sir Creek by saying that the dividing line must run along the eastern bank of the Creek – on the basis of an old map that India no longer recognises despite past record of an agreement of 1914 signed by the governments of Bombay, Sindh and the Raja of Kutch.

The Pakistani claim thus includes the left bank of the Creek, which means that the maritime border too will have to run further east than where the Indians think it is right now. The Creek no longer flows and has shifted westwards, to Pakistan’s disadvantage. Pakistan wants the boundary established according to the historical maps; India wants that too but according to thalweg.

As both the countries are deadlocked after 9 rounds of discussions till 2006, the fisherfolk suffer at the hands of the police and intelligence agencies. These poor original owners of the coast are doomed because both countries have killed the world’s biggest mangroves and fish reserve through pollution and are now simply focused on oil and gas that might or might not be there on the continental shelf. Let’s hope that there is no secret discovery of oil or gas in the uncharted waters or the two will likely have another casus belli.Contested Coastlines: Fisherfolk, Nations and Borders in South Asia;
By Charu Gupta & Mukul Sharma Routledge 2008

WHAT IS THE RAN OF KUTCH?

It was the site of the 1965 tank battles between Pakistan and India. The Rann of Kutch is a seasonally marshy region located in the Thar Desert biogeographic province in Gujarat state of northwestern India and the Sind province of Pakistan.  “Rann” means “salt marsh”.

Kutch is the name of the district wherein it is situated. The Rann of Kutch comprises some 10,000 square miles (30,000 km²) between the Gulf of Kutch and the mouth of the Indus River in southern Pakistan. The Luni River, which originates in Rajasthan, empties into the northeast corner of the Rann.

The area was a vast shallows of the Arabian Sea until continuing geological uplift closed off the connection with the sea, creating a vast lake that was still navigable during the time of Alexander the Great [1]. The Ghaggar River, which presently empties into the desert of northern Rajasthan, formerly emptied into the Rann of Kutch, but the lower reaches of the river dried up as its upstream tributaries were captured by the Indus and Ganges thousands of years ago. Traces of the delta and its distributary channels on the northern boundary of the Rann of Kutch were documented by the Geological Survey of India in 2000.

This inhospitable salty lowland, rich in natural gas and a resting site for migratory Siberian birds, is part of India and Pakistan’s ongoing border dispute concerning Sir Creek. In April 1965, a dispute there contributed to the Indo-Pakistani War of 1965, when fighting broke out between India and Pakistan. Later the same year, British Prime Minister Harold Wilson successfully persuaded both countries to end hostilities and set up a tribunal, to resolve the dispute. A verdict was reached in 1968 which saw Pakistan getting 10% of its claim of 3,500 square miles (9,100 km²). The majority of the area thus remained with India. Tensions spurted again in 1999 during the Kargil crisis when India down a Pakistani palne. Source: Wikipedia

DETAILS OF THE SIR CREEK DISPUTE

One of the best article on the subject of Sir Creek was written by Asif Ibrahim Khan several years ago.

The issue of Sir Creek Asif Ibrahim Khan

The ongoing process of normalisation between India and Pakistan, along with sorting out some burning issues like Kashmir and trade between the two countries, is reviving some disputes put on the back burner. Both the governments have decided to hold a composite dialogue process to address all the disputes between the two countries which have been like thorns in the side of South Asia. There are about eight issues on the agenda to be decided. The Sir Creek issue is one of them which had been put into the cold storage more than a decade ago.

There are 17 creeks of the Sindh coast. The Sir Creek is the seventeenth. These creeks used to be the main distributaries of the River Indus. The Sir Creek is a 60-mile long strip of water between the Rann of Katch (in India) and Sindh (in Pakistan), which emerged as a disputed area in the late 1960s. Since then several attempts have been made to sort out a solution. The reason as to why both the parties are showing sensitivity towards this marshy area is that it is believed that the area has some smart amount of oil and gas deposits in it. In this connection talks started in 1969 but were terminated time and again due to the ups and downs in the relations between India and Pakistan. Till now six rounds of talks have been initiated which have ended without making any improvement. The fifth round of talks was held in 1992 while the sixth round was held on August 5 and 6 recently.

The history of the issue dates back to 1914 when an agreement was signed between the then government of Sindh and the Rao Maharaj of Katch. According to the agreement, both the parties agreed to the boundary line running through the middle of the creek as a border between the two states. The final demarcation of the boundary was completed in 1925 in which the boundary was shown by a ‘green line’ depicted on the eastern side of the creek. In the 1960s, a misconception emerged as a dispute between India and Pakistan. To resolve the issue, talks started in 1969. Having terminated time and again, the fifth round of talks was held in November 1992. No solution could be sorted out. Now as the two countries are eager to resolve all of their bilateral issues, the Sir Creek issue has become one of the eight main issues on the agenda.

At present, the position is such that one side of the creek is under the control of Pakistan whereas there are naval installations of India on the other side. There is a dispute between Pakistan and India over the Sir Creek. Pakistan claims that all the seventeen creeks of the Sindh coast belong to it while India claims that almost half of the area of the Sir Creek, the seventeenth one, belongs to it. According to the official sources, there are as many as 112 Pakistani fishermen languishing in the Indian jails while the number of the Indian fishermen in the Pakistani jails is 250. Some of them have been in jail for over five years.

According to the Indian claim, the ‘green line’ shown in the map as the boundary line was simply an indicative line and the boundary line should be defined by the ‘mid-channel’ of the creek as shown on the map of 1925. Pakistan rejects the Indian view on the grounds that the notion of the ‘mid-channel’ is applicable only to navigable channels while this channel is not navigable.

According to the Indian embassy in Pakistan, “the Indian side proposed that pending formalisation of the boundary in the Sir Creek, the two sides could consider the delimitation of the India-Pakistan maritime boundary from seawards by commencing at Exclusive Economic Zones (EEZ) limit and proceeding landwards up to a mutually acceptable limit as per provisions under the Technical Aspects of the Law of the Sea (TALOS). The seaward approach is based on internationally accepted principles and will benefit both the countries for the exploitation of resources in respective of the EEZ. The issue gains importance in view of the continental shelf claims to be submitted by 2004 to the UN.”

Actually the UNCLOS (the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea), which came into force in November 1994, has established the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf (CLCS). Under Article 76/Annexure II of the CLCS, all the coastal states having continental shelves exceeding 200 nautical miles from their territorial sea baselines are entitled to submit claims to determine the outer limits of their continental shelves to this international commission. The Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf (CLCS) in turn will consider the data and other material submitted by the coastal states and make recommendations in accordance with the provisions of the UNCLOS. The CLCS has issued guidelines detailing the types and format of evidence they will consider. In this connection, the Indian claim can suffer a setback in the presence of the Sir Creek issue because India cannot include this area in its claim of the continental shelf until and unless the issue is resolved.

If Pakistan accepts this Indian proposal of pending the formalisation of boundary in the Sir Creek, it will mean that Pakistan shall share a vast area of this creek with India.

Pakistan, considering its genuine viewpoint, is not willing to allow India to use its area in this way. According to Pakistan, the whole creek belongs to it on the these grounds: first, According to the map accompanying the 1914 resolution the boundary shown by a green line is situated in the east of the Sir Creek; second, all the 17 creeks, including the Sir Creek, used to be the main distributaries of the River Indus, on which Pakistan has got a decisive right; third, the tail of the Sir Creek is called Shah Samdo Creek, which terminates in the Badin district, which indicates that the Pakistani claim is correct; fourth, historically the Indus Delta extended up to the Khori Creek, which is located in Katch, India. As such, the Pakistani claim is correct that the area before the Khori creek belongs to it.

In the light of these facts, “hydrologically, oceanographically and geographically, the Pakistani claim stands correct,” confirms Tahir Qureshi, director, Coastal Ecosystem, World Conservation Union (IUCN), based in Karachi.

Finally, Pakistan has proposed that if India does not consider the Pakistani viewpoint as genuine, then it is ready to take the matter to an international tribunal. The boundary demarcated by an international tribunal will not only help both the parties to sort out the solution of the Sir Creek issue but also help in defining the limits of the EEZ.

On August 5 and 6, talks between India and Pakistan were held in New Delhi. The Pakistani delegation was led by the additional defence secretary, Rear Admiral Ahsanul Haq, while his Indian counterpart, Ranjit Issar, headed the Indian team. At the end of the talks both the parties reiterated the need for an early solution to the issue. They also agreed to continue the talks. President Musharraf, too, said that though no result could be achieved in the Indo-Pak talks on Siachen and Sir Creek, “there was no breakdown as they met for the first time”.

“The Sir Creek issue has an impact on our economic zone. There is no end of dialogue….talks are going on,” he added. But an India’s The Hindu newspaper has reported that senior sources in the defence ministry said that this was the last chance for both the sides to resolve the dispute on bilateral basis, which was “misplaced.”

If India accepts Pakistan’s premise on ‘green line’, it will mean a loss of about 250 miles of EEZ (Exclusive Economic Zone) for India, which India does not seem to be ready to lose. The fact cannot be denied that serious efforts towards peace demand some compromises. If India is sincere to resolve the outstanding issues with Pakistan, the right time has come to show some flexibility and bring peace to the region.

Losing 250 miles of EEZ will pay off. It will let India spend less on security on the eastern side of the Sir Creek. The figures regarding the Pakistani fishermen in Indian jails, and vice versa, reveal that India is losing more than Pakistan. Having resolved the issue and getting the boundary demarcated will facilitate the fishermen from both sides to remain in their respective areas. Beyond all such advantages is the enhanced image of India, which will boost up its reputation in the international community.

Pakistan, having numerous genuine reasons, cannot forego its right over the Sir Creek issue, but India, having weak position on the issue, fewer advantages on sustaining control and more benefits on accepting the Pakistani premise in the area, can do so easily. So an appraisal of its policy over the Sir Creek will be a wise decision on the Indian part.

CURRENT SITUATION IN SIR CREEK: The area has be militarized. To avoid another Siachin, Pakistan is ready. A massive technological upgrade program was initiated from the Badin base has been intensified now.  Al-Khalid tanks have been positionsed on the established boundry. Airfields and airstrips under the jurisdiction of the Karachi-based V Corps set-up are being repaired and the air-defence network has been revamped.

The demarcation of the frontier here has a possible economic impact. This border, once defined, can be the basis of the determination of the maritime boundaries which are usually drawn as an extension on sea from reference points on land.

Maritime boundaries have helped in defining the limits of the Exclusive Economic Zones (EEZs) and the continental shelves. Per internal law, the EEZs extends to 200 nautical miles subject to commercial activity. The presence of oil and gas along the sea-bed in this zone  could have a bearing on the energy potential of the two countries.

India’s gas-based industry on the Gujarat coast depends substantially on the hydrocarbon resource of the Mumbai off-shore fields. The availability of oil and gas in a nearby zone can help in expanding national energy conservation. Islamabad has rejected the mid-channel principle geo-physically proposed by India.

Pakistan is battle-ready. Troops from the 18 Infantry Division and the 206 Infantry Brigade have been asked to man the sensitive areas. And there has been a heavy backup by the Army from Karachi. This is an Embassy of India press release of 1998:

Indian Embassy press release: India-Pakistan talks: Sir Creek New Delhi, November 7, 1998

Talks on the Sir Creek issue were held today as part of the composite dialogue process that has begun between India and Pakistan. The composite dialogue process is directed towards building trust and confidence, seeking mutually beneficial cooperation across a broad front and addressing outstanding issues.

2. Today’s discussions focussed on the boundary in the Sir Creek and the delimitation of the maritime boundary between India and Pakistan. This has been discussed between India and Pakistan at both technical and governmental levels. Five rounds of these discussions, starting in 1969, have taken place. The last round of discussions was held in November, 1992.

3. The issue relates to the demarcation of boundary from (i) the mouth of the Sir Creek to the top of the Sir Creek and (ii) from the top of the Sir Creek eastwards to a point designated as the Western Terminus. The boundary thereafter has been demarcated.

4. Our approach to the Sir Creek issue has been practical, realistic and consistent with historical data. There are well enunciated principles on the basis of which the already settled and demarcated boundary can be formalised.

5. There are four steps in finalisation of boundaries, namely,

i. Allocation.
ii. Delimitation.
iii. Demarcation.
iv. Administration.

Allocation
Allocation is the decision on the basis of which settlement is made.

Delimitation
Delimitation specifies the general criteria for the location of the boundary line and its description. This description may or may not be accompanied by illustrative maps.

Demarcation
Precise actual relaying of the criteria of delimitation to the ground.

Administration
Regulating the demarcated boundary and excercising administrative control.

6. In this particular case, the allocation and the delimitation were done vide paras 9 and 10 of the 1914 Resolution and illustrated on an accompanying map (B-44). Demarcation and administration was completed in 1925. Since then, the boundary in Sir Creek is depicted in the mid-channel by a proper boundary symbol. There was no need of erection of pillars in the middle of the Creek, since its is a natural fluid boundary.

7. The administration of this territory remained with Kutch and was so inherited by the Governments of India and Pakistan.

8. We have conveyed to Pakistan that we should address this issue taking into account the overall perspective so that this boundary, which is already settled and in respect of which all four steps relating to boundary demarcation have already been completed, is formalised.

9. Pakistan, while agreeing that the boundary along the horizontal line and in Sir Creek was a settled issue, maintained that in its interpretation, the Green Line (Lying on the Eastern edge of the Creek) of the map, appendixed to the 1914 Resolution should be transposed on to the ground. Even when it was conveyed that the Resolution of 1914 was already implemented and Green Line was only a symbolic representation, the boundary being mid-chennel, Pakistan persisted with its position of the Green Line.

10. Pakistan’s attitude reflects their desire to seek an absolute resolution from the map to the exclusion of internationally accepted Cartographic procedures as well as historical developments that have taken place.

11. This Indian side proposed that pending formalisation of the boundary in the Sir Creek, the two sides could consider the delimitation of the India-Pakistan maritime boundary from seawards, by commencing at EEZ limit and proceeding landwards upto a mutually acceptable limit as per provisions under Technical Aspects of Law of Sea (TALOS). The seaward approach is based on internationally accepted principles and will benefit both countries for exploitation of resources in respective EEZ. The issue issue gains importance in view of continental shelf claims, to be submitted by 2004 to the UN.

12. The Pakistan delegation, however stated that they would consider maritime boundary only after the determination of land boundary in Sir Creek Area and that both these issues should not be de-linked and would need to be addressed in one package.

13. We will continue our discussions. The part of the ocean floor that borders the continents is called the continental shelf. The continental shelf stretches for up to 124 miles into the Indian Ocean. Around Africa, Asia, and Australia, it slopes gently to an average depth of 460 feet. Around Antarctica, it has a depth between about 1,000 and 1,600 feet..Beyond the continental shelf, the ocean floor becomes rugged, consisting of mountain ranges, broad plateaus, and deep basins. A mountain range called the Mid-Indian Ridge runs through the center of the Indian Ocean. The ridge begins in the Gulf of Aden and separates into two parts at about 25° south latitude. Plateaus in the Indian Ocean may rise more than 10,000 feet above the ocean floor. Basins may drop more than 16,400 feet below the water’s surface.

According to the theory of plate tectonics, scientists believe the Indian Ocean began to form about 200 million years ago. At that time, a single, huge land mass called Pangaea began to break up into the world’s continents. The continents gradually drifted toward their present location. India broke away from Antarctica and Australia as early as 130 million years ago and moved north at a rate of a few inches per year. About 45 million years ago, India collided with Asia. India’s northward movement created scars and ridges on the present Indian Ocean floor.

GIS APPLICATIONS IN MARITIME BOUNDARY DELIMITATION
ABSTRACTUnder the United Nations Law of the Sea, coastal states are provided with legal Articles which determine the manner in which boundaries and limits in the seas may be drawn. Maritime activity such as mineral exploration, research, mining, laying of cables and pipelines, transit and other operations occurring within these boundaries come under the jurisdiction of the coastal state. At present, there is no central source of information to display and explain the various boundaries. This paper describes the development of a Global Maritime Boundary Database which is critical in the planning of maritime activities.

INTRODUCTION

The establishment of a boundary on land is quite straightforward – build a fence, a wall, a road, or a ditch and declare that access to or occupation of the terrain on “your” side is subject to your discretion. This works well when distinct points on the ground may serve as markers from which your boundary lines originate. A “property owner” with the means to control access may thus regulate activities within that region. This owner hopes that another state acknowledges such claims and any question about their location and associated or implied rights can be settled amicably. There are other means of adjudication open to states who may dispute boundaries – one such body is the International Court of Justice which renders decisions affecting boundary delimitation.

The “straightforwardness” of delimitation based upon terrestrial features begins to fail when a body of water becomes part or all of the boundary. A river, lake, estuary , shoreline or other fluid body complicates delimitation. Such features are dynamic and may change within short periods of time, leading to revised interpretations of geographic location upon which boundaries are based. Beyond the sight of land, reasonably accurate positioning is achieved through satellite positioning systems such as the Global Positioning System (GPS) or similar geodetic locational methods In the sea the delimitation of maritime jurisdiction is further compounded by the selection of the datum from which boundaries are derived. There are at least six different vertical references (hydrographic datums) employed to define the basis for drawing maritime boundaries. While such issues are beyond the scope of this paper, we will examine the traditional maritime boundaries invoked by coastal states and the application of Geographic Information Systems (GIS) to facilitate display and interpretation of coastal state claims. A thorough review of maritime boundary issues will be found in Lathrop (1997).

MARITIME BOUNDARIES

Coastal states draw maritime boundaries to delimit areas for juridical purposes. The declaration of a baseline is the basis for establishing the geographic reference from which other maritime limits are drawn.. Specific protocols under the Articles of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) describe the conditions under which a state may establish such baselines, using the shoreline (mean low water), a straight baseline established under UNCLOS Articles, or a combination of both. The traditional zones of a Territorial Sea (usually 12 nautical miles), the insertion of a Contiguous Zone (additional 12 nautical miles ) and the claim of an Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ, usually 200 nautical miles [nmi]) are shown in Figure 1. Since the fundamental reference to such boundaries is the baseline, the UNCLOS has declared formulae to determine the length and direction of lines other than the curvilinear “shoreline” which is based upon various vertical datums. An excellent summary of the UNCLOS, complete with commentary and interpretation, may be found in a supplement to the U.S. State Department’s “Dispatch” U.S. GPO, 1995). Standard references for specific countries and their claims will be found in Prescott (1985), Charney and Alexander (1993) and the ongoing New Directions in the Law of the Sea Series (Oceana).

Figure 1: Primary maritime boundaries drawn from baselines.
TS=Territorial Sea, CZ=ContiguousZone, EEZ=Exclusive Economic Zone.
Continental Shelf boundaries may extend seaward of the EEZ limit.

These constructs, termed “straight baselines,” enclose river mouths, irregular embayments of a specific size, and other features where “internal waters” may be claimed. Under Article 7 of the UNCLOS, straight baselines may be constructed only in a) localities where the coastline is deeply indented and cut into or, b) where a fringe of islands lies in the immediate vicinity of the coast. Two conditions regarding the width of embayments and permissible baselines appear in Figure 2.

Figure 2: Straight baseline construction according to Article 10 of the UNCLOS.
The depth of indentation of an embayment must be greater
than one-half the length of the baseline closing the bay.

Another maritime boundary of growing significance may be derived from geographic references other than the baseline. Delimitation of the Continental Shelf Regime employs bathymetric, geomorphic and geologic datums which also require geospatial documentation. Whereas the EEZ is established to allow of control of activities on the sea’s surface and in the water column, the Continental Shelf claims are directed toward resources, mineral and living, which lie on and under the seafloor. These shelf claims can extend for significant distances beyond the 200 nautical mile EEZ and encompass enormous tracts of the seafloor. There are several formulae which may be invoked in the designation of continental shelf boundaries. Details are explained in a publication of the UN’s Division for Ocean Affairs (UN, 1993). Finally, there are claims on the seafloor under high seas regions which lie beyond any coastal state’s claims. These are included under the United Nations “International Seabed Authority” and convey rights to deep-sea mining in international waters.

Maritime Boundaries as Spatial Data

Maritime boundaries established under either the UNCLOS protocols or unilateral coastal state claims are dependent upon some geospatial reference which (initially) provides a point on the earth’s surface as the fixed basis for a claim. In the case of the low water datum or straight lines for baseline construction, such locations depend upon a variety of hydrographic determinations referenced to their vertical datum. For Continental Shelf boundary constructions (and for other boundaries far from shore), oceanographic and geophysical surveys and their attendant positioning capabilities under such systems as the GPS determine the accuracy of geospatial coordinates employed in establishing boundary claims.

The Management of Maritime Boundary Data in a GIS Approach

A Geographic Information System (GIS) is a computerized data management system for the capture, storage, retrieval, analysis and display of spatial data. The basic elements of a GIS are points, lines, and polygons. They permit the display of two-dimensional presentations of “attributes’” – descriptions of features and data which characterize a particular data set.

To manipulate spatial data in a GIS mode, the computer needs three things:

.. Where each feature is in some referenced geographic space (position)
.. What each feature is (attribute information)
.. The spatial relationship of each feature with respect to others (”neighborhood”)

For maritime boundaries, these conditions are met by the declarations of the coastal state in applying for recognition of its jurisdiction. The basic features are the points: these may be shoreline low water (or other datum) points, geographic features serving as points (headlands, islands, etc.), “turning points” for straight baseline constructions, end-points for a line, or corners for a polygon. After these elements are entered in the GIS database, attributes are applied which “label” the feature and provide background information on the nature of that feature. Finally, the GIS relates the feature (point, line or polygon) to neighboring features (coastline, similar features, different features, etc.).

Applications of a Maritime Boundary Database

Maritime boundary information is available from a variety of sources, including the United Nations, various State Departments or their equivalents in coastal states, academic institutions and private databases. Yet nowhere are all the data, and especially their attributes providing essential background information, available in a GIS database. Marine enterprises benefit from, and depend upon, information regarding the juridical claims presented by coastal states. Under such claims, stipulations addressing constraints to various activities under UNCLOS protocols or coastal state declarations become integral elements in planning offshore developments which will both justify investor’s support and assure unimpeded execution of proposed offshore endeavors.

MRJ Technology Solutions has developed, and will shortly offer, a Global Maritime Boundary Database (GMBD) which will contain information on current maritime delimitation and offer periodic updates to changes in coastal state’s claims to jurisdiction over offshore regions. An example of such a database entry is provided in Figure 3. Here the claims of Pakistan have been displayed and the variety and nature of UNCLOS claims as well as indigenous claims and the location of a disputed area are presented in a database format.

Maritime boundaries: India, Oman, Iran (median lines, not arbitrated). Signed UNCLOS 12-10-82 Ratified UNCLOS 02-26-97 Baselines 08-29-96 TSL Claimed 1996 12 nmi CZ claimed 1996 24 nmi Fisheries Zone(1) 1973 35 nmi EEZ 1976 200 nmi Continental Shelf 1976 200 nmi (plus continental margin definition) MSR Jurisdiction Yes MSR Regulations Yes		Baseline published in Gazette of Pakistan via Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 29 August 1996. (DOALOS, Law of the Sea Bulletin #34, p. 45, 1997). Straight baseline turning points: (a) 25°02.20′N 61°35.50′E (b) 25°00.95′N 61°46.80′E (c) 25°05.30′N 62°21.00′E (d) 25°06.30′N 63°51.01′E (e) 25°09.00′N 64°35.20′E (f) 25°18.20′N 65°11.60′E (g) 24°49.45′N 66°40.00′E (h) 23°52.80′N 67°26.80′E (i) 23°47.30′N 67°35.90′E (k) 23°33.90′N** 68°07.80′E** **disputed by India
Comments: Straight baselines from which TSL, CZ, EEZ and Continental Shelf shall be measured. From Pakistan’s Territorial Waters and Maritime Zones Act of 1976 (sec. 2, par. 3). Internal Waters lie landward of these baselines. (1) Current deep sea fishing policy reserves exploitation rights in Zone I, between 12 and 35 nmi from shore, for artisinal fishermen. Zone II, 36-200 nmi, open to larger trawlers and longliners, requires a license from Ministry of Food, Agriculture and Livestock. (World Fishing, January 1998, p. 2) **Disputed zone with India results from overlap of TSL/CZ boundaries. (DOALOS, Law of the Sea Bulletin #35. p. 41, 1997)

Figure 3: Example of GMBD entry. Attribute data describe construction of maritime limits and sources of information.

At present the GMBD boundary data are derived from numerous sources. We have employed World Vector Shoreline (WVS) at the scale of 1:250,000 as the reference for boundaries. Due to the small scale of the WVS as compared to the larger scale of approach and harbor charts (1:100,000 to 1:25,000) from which listed boundary coordinates are derived, a review has been made of nautical charts and supplementary sources of hydrographic data to ensure islands, reefs, rocks and shoals were represented in WVS. Buffers constructed from such data provide the basis for graphic presentation of boundaries in the GMBD.

In smaller seas such as the Mediterranean and Caribbean, a state’s claim to an EEZ extending the full 200 nmi creates overlaps. In addition, with the increasing capability to exploit natural resources on and under the deep seabed at least 33 countries can, under Article 76 of the UNCLOS, draw limits to their continental shelves which extend beyond their respective EEZ’s.

Where these claims, and those for EEZ’s, overlap a “median line” (or “equidistant line”) can become the agreed boundary. MRJ Technology Solutions has developed a program using Avenue scripts developed in ESRI’s Arcview GIS software to create a global set of median lines on the surface of a spheroid. The program does not require the user to pre-select controlling points from the baselines; the program selects them directly from the shoreline (any scale source) and/or straight baseline data. The user can indicate the desired accuracy by adjusting the step size and tolerance.

Sources of Error

Questions of scale and projection enter into an assessment of accuracy in any GIS. In the case of maritime boundaries, this is especially true since data derived from nautical charts suffer from factors such as line width on the chart and variations in chart datum between countries (hence an discrepancy in buffering). Mercator projection is the common basis for mariners, and errors in line length and in true distances increase cumulatively as distance from the equator increases. The basis and assumptions for all data in the GMBD are carefully enumerated for the user and sources of error are identified as appropriate to each entry. Lathrop (1997) and Vanicek (1998) review some of these pitfalls in their reviews of delimitation errors.

Users

Maritime boundaries affect all those engaged in offshore activities, from extractive industries such as fisheries and petroleum to the conduct or marine scientific research (MSR). The latter is of special concern to the academic community since formal permissions for obtaining samples from the water column or the seafloor may require not only permission from the coastal state but participation on-board ship by coastal state scientists. The GMBD is designed to provide those engaged in maritime activities with a planning tool which presents the geographic extent of real or perceived jurisdictions of coastal states. It further identifies those regions in which boundaries are in dispute, overlap or are otherwise unresolved. For example, numerous boundary issues have been raised as a result of fisheries disputes, and in many cases the fisheries agreements and their limits and conditions (usually quotas, restrictions in gear and vessels size or seasonal constraints) are incorporated in the GMBD.

CONCLUSIONS

No maritime activity should be anticipated or undertaken without cognizance of boundaries claimed by coastal states. Coastal states are entitled to control, regulate, deny, or in the case of MSR participate in, marine activity occurring in waters which they may rightly claim under ratification of the UNCLOS. As the legal framework of maritime boundaries evolves, the GMDB will provide current status and locational information in a GIS context useful to a variety of users.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The development and maintenance of the GMBD has been, and remains, an arduous task. Its success depends on the dedication of the GIS staff of MRJ Technology Solutions. Without the support of Kurt Christensen, Laura Crenshaw, Tracie Penman and Joe Cimino this effort could not be sustained.

REFERENCES

• Mr. Kurt K. Christensen, Engineering Specialist, MRJ Technology Solutions, 10560 Arrowhead Dr., Fairfax, VA 22030, USA (703) 277-1879 fax (703) 385-4637, kchrist1@mrj.com
• Charney, J.I. and Alexander, L.M., 1993, International Maritime Boundaries.3 vols., American Society of International Law (Dordrecht, Boston, London: Martinus Nuhoff Publishers).
• Lathrop, C., 1997, “The technical aspects of international maritime boundary delimitation, depiction and recovery. Ocean Development and International Law, Vol. 28, pp. 167-197.
• Oceana Publications, ongoing series, New Directions in the Law of the Sea.Ed. K.R. Simmonds (London, Rome, New York: Oceana Publications, Inc.).
• Prescott, J. R. V., 1985, The Maritime Political Boundaries of the World.London: (Methuen and Co., Ltd).
• United Nations, 1993, The law of the Sea: Definition of the Continental Shelf. Division for Ocean Affairs and the Law of the Sea. (New York: Office of Legal Affairs, United Nations), 50 p.
• U.S. Government Printing Office, 1995, Dispatch: Law of the Sea Convention: Letters of Transmittal and Submittal and Commentary.U.S. Department of State, Office of Public Communications, Bureau of Public Affairs, Vol. 6, Supplement No. 1, ed. C. Macdonald (Washington, D.C.) 54 p.
• Dr. Harold D. Palmer, Senior Marine Scientist, MRJ Technology Solutions, 10560 Arrowhead Dr. Fairfax, VA 22030, USA, (703) 277-1239, fax (703) 385-4637, hpalmer@mrj.com or MaritimeBoundaries@mrj.com
• Mr. Lorin T. Pruett, Senior Marine GIS Analyst, MRJ Technology Solutions, 10560 Arrowhead Dr., Fairfax, VA 22030, USA (703) 277-1879 fax (703) 385-4637, lpruett@mrj.com

Noticias de Rupia | Nouvelles de Roupie | Rupiennachrichten | новости рупии | 卢比新闻  | Roepienieuws | Rupi Nyheter | ルピーニュース  | Notizie di Rupia |  PAKISTAN LEDGER | پاکستاني کھاتا | Moin Ansari | معین آنصآرّی | DefensebriefsIntellibriefs Translate to: RSS feed: | RUPEE NEWS | February 6th, 2008 | Moin Ansari |  معین آنصآرّی | اخبار روپیہ  |