78 Articles Section Ireland and the Rockall Dispute: An Analysis of Recent Developments Clive R. Symmons as well as to national fishing rights in the Introduction surrounding seas [emphasis added]. The legal issues surrounding the remote Atlantic The recent Irish statement implies that Ireland still rock of Rockall have been a long-standing saga for considers the status of the rock itself to be a live Ireland, centring on what maritime zones such a issue as it goes on to say: “Both sides remain aware 1 2 minuscule and distant insular formation may of the continuing position of their counterpart in generate. They have progressively escalated from an the matter [of jurisdiction over the rock].”12 But as essentially bilateral dispute between the UK and yet there appears to have been no “political 3 Ireland to what is now a major quadrilateral dispute discussion” about the title issue concerning the rock; between the UK, Ireland, Denmark (on behalf of the and it is interesting to note that in the recent British 4 Faeroes) and Iceland, and involving issues on press release of 21 July 1997 – following the seabed rights which no longer remain realistically dramatic British change of position on accession to linked to the effect of mere ownership of the rock. the 1982 LOSC – it is stated that the “UK’s title to Rockall will not be affected” and that the island In terms of ownership, the rock is undeniably “will remain part of Scotland” (under the 1972 5 British; and none of the other disputants has Island of Rockall Act). And, in fact, the rock will actually laid any claim to it. Certainly Iceland and “remain well within the revised [UK 200 -mile] Denmark appear never to have challenged British fishery limits” which have now fallen back to the 6 title there. Ireland, however, has perhaps more easterly island of St Kilda.13 manifested a slight change in position from that of 7 reserving its position over the rock (in the 1970s ) Rockall and its Effect on Continental Shelf and treating its status as irrelevant to generation of Claims the major maritime zones – to the more hawkish position in the late 1980s of outrightly ‘rejecting’ A concern for Ireland – as also for Denmark and purported British sovereignty over the rock.8 Iceland – in the past has been the claimed potentiality that Rockall might not only generate as 14 In the British/Irish context the question of ownership an “island” a vast Atlantic continental shelf for the of the rock (and its “immediate surrounds”) was UK – as was foreshadowed in the Island of Rockall 15 stated to be a “totally separate issue” from that of Act – but also (albeit to a lesser degree) might be seabed delimitation in the area which was agreed used as a relevant basepoint to the UK’s advantage 16 upon between the UK and Ireland in the 1988 in any continental shelf delimitation in the area. Continental Shelf Delimitation Agreement;9 and it For the UK’s past position was strongly in favour of was to be solved by “subsequent political using all its islands to best advantage, including a 17 discussion or otherwise.”10 This still seems to be strict median line position relative to them. the position in the Anglo-Irish context. For as has been recently stated in the Dáil:11 In the light of this, and the fact that since the ‘Rockall dispute’ originated, the 1982 LOSC has 18 The issue of Rockall has in the past been a source deprived through Article 121(3), uninhabitable and of some public and political controversy in both economically worthless “rocks” of the capacity to Ireland and in the United Kingdom. Much of that generate continental shelf or 200-mile EEZs (or controversy was due to unresolved fears on either fishery zones) for the owner State, it is not surprising side regarding the division as between the two that British claims to continental shelf in the Rockall countries in the sea area around that rock. ...In region increasingly tended to emphasise an particular, jurisdiction over Rockall – the claim to alternative basis of claim – namely that the Rockall which is contested by Ireland – was thought to be Plateau and its environs were a natural prolongation 19 central to the mineral rights in the adjacent seabed, of the Scottish landmass. And, indeed despite some possible Irish interpretations to the contrary,20 the UK did not rely on Rockall relative to neighbouring IBRU Boundary and Security Bulletin Spring 1998 © Articles Section 79 States for median line purposes in its 1974 seabed in the area.26 As the latest Irish Dáil continental shelf designation21 in the Rockall Region. statement confirms, this Agreement reflects the Irish “understanding of the law” (i.e., Article 121(3) of This general tendency no doubt reflected the British the LOSC); and the delimitation was “agreed concern that it was unwise in the context of the new without reference to Rockall”.27 law of the sea provision in Article 121(3) of the LOSC22 to put too many eggs into the ‘Rockall In similar fashion, the unilateral actions of Denmark basket’. In other words , in more recent times, and Iceland in 1985 designating for each State vast Rockall has been viewed even by the UK as having swathes of seabed in the Rockall region – which little or no part to play in any agreed settlement of overlapped then (as now) not only with each other, the seabed dispute in the region, which, in fact, but also with the existing British and Irish claims28 – hangs more realistically on differing interpretations paid no legal regard to Rockall. This attitude was of the concept of “natural prolongation” from the consistent with their past official statements and shores of the regionally-involved parties.23 protests over conflicting designations in the region.29 For this reason, the (now overridden) 1996 British Recent Irish Action Exacerbating The statement (referred to below) announcing Seabed Dispute In The Rockall Trough postponement of any British accession to the LOSC, because of the threat to Rockall’s status under that Insofar as the above mentioned Danish and Icelandic convention, was largely of academic interest in terms continental shelf designations overlap with those of of the seabed (continental shelf) claims in the Ireland – as they do in the Atlantic west of 16° West Rockall region.24 (see Figure 1) – it appears to have gone unnoticed by commentators in Ireland that Ireland has recently Not surprisingly, the 1988 Anglo-Irish Continental made a legally significant move in this region which Shelf Delimitation Agreement25 completely ignored can be interpreted as being aimed at strengthening its any effect from Rockall on the stepped line there claim to the seabed in the area as against these other agreed as dividing the respective British and Irish two overlapping claimants in the area south of the Anglo-Irish agreed continent shelf boundary. For in Figure 1: Rockall Trough 1997 Frontier Licensing Round IBRU Boundary and Security Bulletin Spring 1998 © 80 Articles Section the Irish “Frontier Licensing Round” on the official statements on exploitation potential Rockall Trough region30 announced in March 1996, following the 1988 Anglo-Irish continental shelf about three-quarters of the Irish-claimed Trough was delimitation Agreement now sound very hollow. opened up to exploration. It was also then confidently stated in the Dáil that the In amongst the most distant quadrants opened up for Danish/Icelandic overlaps only really impinged on licence in this huge area of almost 150,000 square the British side of the 1988 agreed Anglo-Irish kilometres were number 78, 80, 90, 91, 92 and 93.31 boundary; and that (in some mysterious way), the The entire quadrants of these were opened to licence British sector shielded the Irish sector from being in the case of blocks 91 and 92 as well as part of affected by these rival claimants.35 quadrants 78, 80 and 93 to the north and most of the blocks within quadrant 90 (where, the southernmost It is possible to conclude that the opening up to designation line shaves off the southern part in licensing by Ireland of zones inside the above- diagonal fashion) (see Figure 1). mentioned disputed Rockall Trough zones was not based on commercial consideration alone, and that All these quadrants abut the contending claims of an ulterior or additional motive may have been to Iceland and Denmark. For example, in quadrant 78 attempt to consolidate its claim to its presently - one (at least) of the blocks appears to come very designated areas within these disputed zones. In any close to the (here) more expansive Icelandic (as case, a most deliberate type of Irish policy has compared with Danish) claims closely skirting the resulted, going beyond that of the simple (and Irish 200-mile limit. It may be noted that the formal) action of counter-designation over an Icelandic claimed boundary in this sector is based on existing seabed designation of another State. For the (perceived) Irish-claimed 200-mile fishery limit; this latest action enters the more contentious realm of and as Ireland has never published co-ordinates for practical State activity – namely relating to the full 200 mile ‘Atlantic arc’ of its 200-mile exploration (and so potential exploitation) of seabed fishery zone, the area of overlap in this area can only in over-lapping zones. be approximately estimated.32 The more formalistic counter-designation diplomatic Four however, of the above-mentioned quadrants are ploy (but without more) has already been used by particularly interesting and significant from a legal Ireland on an isolated occasion against the UK – in point of view, namely quadrants 91, 92 and 93 and 1977 when the UK had announced the offer of a also quadrant 80 (to a lesser degree).