It is well understood that the rules concerning straight baselines, found in Art. 4 of the 1959 Geneva Convention on the Territorial Sea and Art. 7 of the 1982 Law of the Sea Convention and which are themselves derived from the decision of the ICJ in the Norwegian Fisheries case of 1951, are open to abuse. An authoritative exposition based upon careful analysis of both texts and state practice would be welcome. Unfortunately, that need survives this book.

This book has a number of odd features. First, the authors contend—and the title implies—that maritime boundary delimitation between states is hampered by uncertainties concerning the baselines from which maritime zones are generated. While this may be true in the abstract, the recent practice in disputes submitted to third party settlement procedures evidences a pragmatic approach: disputes concerning baselines are largely ignored and methods are adopted which avoid the need to pronounce upon the validity of those claimed. Alternatively, special lines are drawn for particular purpose in hand. Rather than applaud the ingenuity of the courts in circumventing this problem, this trend is recognized and roundly condemned (pp. 203–206). Recognizing this trend, however, erodes one of the pillars upon which the work is built.

Secondly, the authors contend that the overgenerous application of the rules governing straight baselines have the effect of eroding the “Common Heritage” by pushing seawards the area under national jurisdiction. From a semantic point of view, it might be pointed out that, since the Common Heritage begins where national jurisdiction ends, a relaxed, as opposed to a clearly untenable, approach to the interpretation erodes nothing. Nor is it recognized that the outer limit of the continental shelf is not always determined by reference to baselines, straight or otherwise. The extreme outer limit may be limited by reference to a line 100 miles from the 2,500-metre isobath under the 1982 Convention (Art. 76(5)) and the status of the alternative 350-mile limit as customary law is not yet assured. Nevertheless, the substance of the matter is as the authors say. Straight baselines do push out national jurisdiction at the expense of the Common Heritage.

To counter this, the authors argue for a “metanorm” of “strict interpretation”. Their arguments are premised upon the belief that national jurisdiction should not be forced seawards in this fashion. They see straight baselines as having two possible functions, which they set in opposition to each other: rationalization of complex baselines and as a vehicle for expansionism. They favour the former approach and advocate the adoption of the “arc of circles” method for delimiting maritime zones. Indeed, they buttress this argument by suggesting that the use of straight baselines was really a ploy to extend national jurisdiction and, since this has now been achieved through, inter alia, the 200-mile EEZ, there is no reason not to abandon it. Be that as it may, the texts exist and, as the authors admit, are unlikely to