The Replies of Denmark to
Vice-President Oda's Questions
Denmark bas the honour to reply to the three questions posecl by Vice-President
Oda at the conclusion othe first round of oral pleadinon Thursday, 21 January
1993.
1. As Denmark recalls, the concept of a200-mile exclusive economic zone
_which was adopted at UNCLOS III, emerged not because States opposed
the notion of a 200-mile fishing zone but because they wished to have an
expanded jurisdiction. That is to say, they believed it should be a
jurisdiction not confined to the utilisation and conservation of fishing
resources but extending to pollution control, control over scientific
research, the construction of artificial islands etc. The "exclusive
economic zone" concept contains a whole variety of jurisdictional powers
in contrast to the fishing zone. There. does not, however, exist in
international law an obligation on States to claim ail these jurisdictional
powersat the same time, and it is thus legitimate for States - as many do -
to claim only the fisheries jurisdiction outo200 nautical miles. Indeed,
the practiceis widespread. The 6th Revision of Limits in the Setis 1990
(No. 36 National Claims to Maritime Jurisdictions) gives the following list
of States claiming 200 miles exclusive fishing zones, but not "exclusive
econonùc zones": Angola, Australia, the Bahamas, Belgium, Brueni,
Canada, Denmark, Federal Republic of Gennany, German Democratic '
.i
Republic, Guyana, Ireland, Japan, Malaysia, Nauru, Netherlands, Poland,
South Africa, Sweden, United Kingdom, 2.aire:and originally some States
like Chile, Senegal, USA, and Trinidad and Tobago began with fishing
zones and moved to full exclusive economic zones at a later date.
Denmark is not aware of any general opposition to this practice.
Danish Act No. 597 of 17 December 1976 on the Fishing Territory of the
Kingdom of Denmark (Annex 1 to the Memorial) authorises the
Govemment of Denmark to establish 200 nautical miles fishing zones for
the Kingdom of Denmark. Pursuant to this Act the Government of
Denmark has extended the fishing zones throughout the Kingdom.
Considerations are now being given to declare an exclusive economic wne
in some or ail partsof the Danish maritime spaces.
2. Denmark bas talŒnthe view that Jan Mayen, because of its size, could not
be regarded as a "rock" for the purposes _ofArticle 121(3) of the 1982
Convention. Thus an interpretation of the phrase "sustain human habitation
or economic life of their own" has not been of direct relevance to the
present case.
In Denmark's view, however, the rationale behind the new provision in·
Article 121(3) also has implications in a delimitation situation between ·
2 inhabited and uninhabited territories such as in the present case in so far
as it implies that a delimitation oughtto faveur the former.
3. State practice has increasingly favoured the use of a single maritime
boundary, perhaps because, in the majority of situations, there is no
relevant factor which couldjustify a different location for shelf, fishing
exclusive economic zone boundaries. Moreover, in the present case there
hasbeen no request for different lines, one for the shelf and another, a
differento~e, for the fishing zones
In determining the locationof such a single boundary Denmark haswished
to follow the judgment of the International Court in the Gulf of Maine
case. As Denmark understands that judgment, it was not so much a
question of which zone line (i.e. shelf or :fishingzone) had priority, or
which zone absorbe.cithe other, but more a question of identifying and
applying those factors relevantto both zones.
The Hague, 27 January1993
3
Denmark's Replies to Questions put by Vice-President Oda