I’m curious about the rules on new land ownership, say a huge island springs up in the Gulf of Mexico, about equal distance from Mexico, the U.S., and Cuba. Would it be whoever set foot on it first, or whoever sent the biggest battleship?
Suppose you built an island in a lake-does it belong to you? The prehistoric inhabitants of ireland did this (artificial islands-called “crannogs”). You basically dump stones in a circular pattern, and fill the inside up with sand. takes a while, but soon you have an island.
I guess it depends on who owns the water in the first place. In the case of the lake, the State, I guess, that will vary with local laws. In the case of the OP, in international waters, then I don’t know.
Closer to the second option than the first one. Merely setting foot on unclaimed territory won’t do it. The territory goes to the first country to control it, assuming it’s terra nullius in the first place. I’ll have to dig up some cites for you later, I’m not where I can do that right now.
Gfactor and Sapo are both on the right track.
If the island falls within the national waters of an existing country, then there should be no problems.
If the island is not within another country’s waters, then there’s somewhat of a free for all. Should a country wish to exert sovereignty on a piece of land, it has to do things like occupy the land, publicly announce it, have a military presence (these are non-limitative factors).
If two countries wish to exert a claim to the same island, then we end up in the crux of International law: recognizance. You can occupy a land all you want, but if no other country recognizes your sovereignty over that land, then it’s worth bupkes.
The basic rule about islands is the same as the mainland. If you want to claim it you just need a bigger miliary than the next guy who wants it.
But what if I’ve got a flag? The native americans didn’t have a flag, and when europeans ran about pell mell jamming flags in the sand they had nothing with which to counter.
The flag was merely the symbol of asserting sovereignty. It needed to be backed up with arms.
If it’s within territorial waters, sovereignty belongs to the nation within whose waters it lies. For example, the submarine volcano off the southeast tip of the Big Island will sooner or later build up to surface level. It will then become a piece of the State of Hawaii, U.S.A.
Title to the land is vested in accordance with the laws of the sovereign power, and generally belongs to the government in the first instance. So the state of Hawaii or the U.S. (depending on how the laws read) will “own” the land and sell or grant it to the private persons (which might be the National Geographic Society or the Vulcanological Study) as they see fit.
If it’s in international waters, it’s subject to claim – and odds are there are international treaties in place about this.
I am guessing that a new island on international waters would have to be a volcano, right? And that it would be more or less predictable in that you could spot it before in breaks surface, right?. Would we see all nation’s fleets circling around the spot to land on it first? (with asbestos suits, of course). Could they send some divers and plant a flag on it BEFORE it breaks surface, or would that be illegal?
The big question here would be, WHY? A newly formed volcanic island would have little or nothing to offer in terms of natural resources.
It will be years or even centuries before the island is big enough to establish a population base and support agriculture or manufacturing. What would be the point in nations fighting over the right to have first claim on a new uncharted rock popping out of the ocean? There are already thousands of such “islands” that are unclaimed because they have no economic or political importance.
As noted, they probably aren’t going to bother.
The most recent example in the news is the emergence of a volcanic island in the Tonga archipelago, and like most emerging volcanic islands, it’s eroding again:
http://www.matangitonga.to/article/tonganews/natural_events/tonga_eruption_081106.shtml
As observed, an emerging volcanic island will likely be of little commercial value. The primary interested parties will be the scientific community, and shippers who wish to note it as a new navigation hazard. For PR reasons, if nothing else, a nation with a claim to it will probably simply cooperate with the wishes of scientific investigators, who just want assurances that a proper investigation takes place, and will probably want it “off limits” to non-scientific visitation.
It stands to reason that an emerging volcanic island will be in shallower parts of the ocean, and near already existing real estate, making it pretty clear who it “belongs to”. This new island obviously belongs to Tonga. Surtsey obviously belonged to Iceland when it emerged. I doubt that anybody is going to be inclined to argue.
Would a new island enable a State to extend its territorial waters? Say there’s something valuable on or under the nearby seabed…
exactly, maybe there is nothing worth your penny on the island itself but it should give you some strategical advantage. Just position near an enemy is enough, fishing/mining rights, Radar placement, I don’t know. I am sure there is someone hawkish enough to see value in it.
If they really want to, nations don’t really need a new island as a justification for extending their territorial waters, or similar control. There’s a plethora of other justifications available. Witness the UK / Iceland “cod wars”. In 1972, Iceland arbitrarily extended their zone of control out to 200 miles, precipitating the dispute.
New islands? Hell, most of the world hasn’t yet figured out who owns the oldest city: although Israel considers Jerusalem its capital, only the USA and Costa Rica (IIRC) recognize it as the capital and have an embassy there, while the rest of the world either considers Tel Aviv the capital and Jerusalem a neutral city at best, or (in the case of Iran, Syria, etc.) doesn’t recognize Israel’s existence at all.
Maybe not, but it could offer strategic troop placement or defensive positioning. Some countries just like ownin’ stuff, anyway; the US, England and France all own land that probably doesn’t do a lot for them.
There are exactly three ways for a sovereign to assert control over territory:
[ul]
[li]Treaty with the sovereign who previously controlled it[/li][li]Right of conquest[/li][li]Fiat[/li][/ul]
In the case of the new land, there may be several sovereigns who seek to claim it by fiat. The issue would most likely ultimately be resolved by recourse to one of the two remaining options.
The whole “international waters” thing is not as defined as you might think. As I recall from my stint as a lawyer in front of the Hague’s International Court… ok, ok, it was a mock Hague and I was in high school doing model UN…
Traditionally, international waters were those beyond 3 miles of the nation’s shoreline – the “flight of a cannonball” rule. Now it’s 200 miles, at least as far as the US is concerned, but this is not met with universal national agreement in all cases and for all countries. Some countries seek to measure from their continental shelf, rather than from the shore; others simply don’t accept the 200 mile rule, especially when it places some desirable location out of their reach.
I welcome correction on these points from those more versed in international law than I am, especiaily those whose training is more advanced than 20+ years ago high school.
Actually, as this article (http://www.american.edu/ted/ice/CODWAR.htm) notes, 200 miles was the evolving standard. And Iceland didn’t pull the number out of thin air. Countries had been claiming a 200 swath since the 40s. THE EXCLUSIVE ECONOMIC ZONE: A HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE It has since been codified in the UNCLOS: http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mlawofsea.html
Disputes about the precise boundaries of various sometimes arise, as in the case of the Northwest Passage (Sovereignty over the Northwest Passage - Great Debates - Straight Dope Message Board), but they generally involve debate over where the landward boundary (the baseline) is, instead of the outer boundary.
I know. It was a joke. An obscure reference to an Eddie Izzard routine in which the natives throw up their hands because they do not have a flag with which to refute the flagging in their shores.
