How does RTE signing decree declaring the area a maritime park change things ?
National marine parks—more accurately referred to as Marine Protected Areas (MPAs)—established in or adjacent to the high seas do not legally grant a state the right to claim an Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) out of nothing. However, under international maritime law, they serve as one of the most strategic tools to
legitimize, strengthen, and manifest the sovereign rights necessary to anchor an EEZ claim [BMDHS]. [
1,
2,
3]
The analysis of how these open-sea marine parks contribute to EEZ declarations under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) is structured below.
1. Evidence of Effective Control (
Effectivités)
- The Legal Hurdle: In international maritime boundary disputes, a mere paper claim over a maritime zone carries little weight. Tribunals look for effectivités—the continuous and effective exercise of state authority [BMDHS]. [1]
- Demonstrating Sovereignty: By establishing a marine park, a coastal state deploys naval or coast guard patrols, monitors illegal fishing, regulates maritime traffic, and enforces environmental laws. [1, 2, 3]
- The Outcome: These enforcement activities provide concrete, verifiable evidence to the international community that the state is actively managing the zone, thereby cementing its geopolitical footprint before or during an EEZ declaration [BMDHS].
2. Utilizing "Green Geopolitics" for Legitimacy
- The UNCLOS Framework: Article 56 of UNCLOS explicitly grants coastal states jurisdiction within their EEZ for the "protection and preservation of the marine environment" [BMDHS]. [1, 2]
- Soft Power Strategy: Unilaterally declaring an EEZ for purely economic reasons (like oil, gas, or fishing deep-sea stocks) often triggers immediate friction with neighboring states or global powers.
- The Outcome: Framing the expansion into outer maritime zones as a contribution to global biodiversity or climate goals shifts the narrative. It makes it politically and diplomatically difficult for rival nations to protest the move without looking eco-unfriendly.
3. Leverage in Maritime Boundary Delimitations
- Historical Track Record: When two states have overlapping EEZ claims, international courts (like the ICJ or ITLOS) review the historical activities of both nations in the disputed waters.
- Administrative Dominance: A state that has spent years funding scientific research, mapping the seabed, and managing ecological data via a national marine park holds a distinct advantage.
- The Outcome: The state can demonstrate a long-term administrative connection to the waters, which courts often favor over a state that has merely voiced passive political objections.
4. Anchoring Rights to Marine Genetic Resources (MGR)
- The Shift to Bio-Prospecting: Modern EEZ value is no longer just about traditional fishing or oil; it increasingly involves Marine Genetic Resources (MGRs) found in deep-sea ecosystems used for pharmaceuticals.
- Regulatory Monopoly: Setting up a marine park gives the coastal state the legal framework to mandate that any foreign research vessel must seek its permission to sample the area.
- The Outcome: This builds a precedent of regulatory control over the economic assets of the seabed, making a subsequent or simultaneous EEZ declaration a logical legal evolution. [1, 2, 3, 4]
5. Synergy with the BBNJ Agreement (High Seas Treaty)
- The New Global Rulebook: The Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction (BBNJ) Agreement focuses heavily on creating MPAs in the high seas (waters beyond national EEZs).
- Preemptive Claiming: States that establish marine parks at the outer fringes of their current territorial waters or continental shelves effectively set up buffer zones.
- The Outcome: In future delimitation negotiations or continental shelf extension claims, these established ecological zones serve as "acquired rights" or geographical baselines that are highly difficult to roll back. [1, 2, 3, 4]
