State A and State B are adjacent coastal states in Africa. The relationship between them has been characterised by political tensions, with occasional armed confrontations. Both States are parties to UNCLOS.

Recently, State A announced that it intends to "technologically upgrade some submerged coral reefs in the South Atlantic Ocean, through artificial reclamation work, in order to construct a floating weather observation station in international waters". The purpose of this station would be to monitor weather conditions and produce up-to-date weather charts and to facilitate more accurate ocean climate-change modelling.

State B addressed a letter to the UN Security Council in which it contended that "...this activity would legally expand State A's territorial and exclusive economic zone (EEZ) rights in the Atlantic Ocean" and that "it should not be permissible for State A to carry out artificial island activities as this is contrary to the rules and principles of international law, including UNCLOS".

State A dismissed these objections, asserting that its intended "reef-upgrading activities are purely scientific and, thus, perfectly legal under international law" and will proceed as scheduled.

State B then warned that "unless State A drops its plans, it will have no choice but to bring the matter to the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS) which has compulsory jurisdiction on the matter under UNCLOS".

Earlier, State A had made a written declaration under Article 298 UNCLOS, declaring: "The Government of State A does not accept any of the procedures provided for in Part XV, section 2, with respect to disputes concerning maritime delimitation".

Having regard to the applicable rules and principles of international law, particularly UNCLOS, provide a legal evaluation of the above statements and declarations. Refer to sources of legal authority, including case law and scholarly literature where necessary, to support your legal propositions.

In doing so, based on the facts at hand:

2. Identify and explain the legal nature of the disagreement and the relevant rules and principles under UNCLOS on the subject matter of the disagreement.
4. Would the legal position be any different if the given "reef-upgrading" activities were to be carried out in State B's territorial sea?
6. Is State B (claimant) entitled to bring a case against State B (respondent) before the ITLOS? Can ITLOS exercise jurisdiction on the case?What other compulsory dispute settlement options would be available in the circumstances?

Answer rating: 100% (QA)

The legal evaluation of the scenario provided involves an analysis of several aspects of international law primarily focusing on the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea UNCLOS and its rele... View the full answer