To complement the insights of my co-panelists, I will offer some reflections from the perspective of my UN mandate, on the ongoing global anti-racism debate as it has been structured by the COVID-19 pandemic, and the national and transnational uprisings against systemic racism in law enforcement.

Sea-level rise is accelerating globally. Small island states are particularly affected by sea-level rise, as are other coastal states. In light of this situation, important legal questions arise in relation to the law of the sea.

It has been argued that the expected sea-level rise will lead to the shifting of baselines. It is further held that, as a matter of consequence, this means that all maritime borders depending upon baselines will have to shift accordingly or have to be renegotiated. This would affect the boundaries vis-à-vis neighboring states, opposite or adjacent, as well as the delineation of the exclusive economic zone and the delineation of the continental shelf if no outer continental shelf (no shelf beyond 200 nm) exists. The Baselines Committee of the International Law Association (ILA) stated that in “extreme circumstances [landward changes of the baseline] could result in total territorial loss and the consequent total loss of baselines and of the maritime zones measured from those baselines. The existing law of the normal baselines does not offer an adequate solution to this potentially serious problem.” I see the logic of the arguments based upon Articles 3, 4, and 5 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). Nevertheless, I disagree with the interpretation of UNCLOS Articles 3 and 4. In consequence thereof, I disagree with the qualification that baselines are “ambulatory.” In my view, other considerations have to be taken into account—see below. I am pleased to note that the ILA Committee on sea-level rise in its report took a more balanced view than the Baselines Committee.

Whether or not there are “shortcomings” in the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) depends of course on one's view of the adequacy or desirability of the current law, and that in turn depends on one's views of what the current law is. Before I comment on that, it is useful to first summarize what we are talking about, and that is what the consequences are of a rising sea level for the location and extent of maritime jurisdictional areas. And here a distinction must be made between (1) areas that have been delimited between two coastal states by a boundary agreement or a decision by an international court or tribunal, and (2) areas where either there are no adjacent or opposite other coastal states or no delimitation has yet taken place. The first situation in my view does not raise any problems because, in brief, under general international law such boundaries are permanent unless the parties agree to change the existing boundary. Much more can be said about this but there is no time to delve into that area. The second situation is more complicated. Here the international law on “baselines” (in combination with the law on extent and limits of maritime jurisdictional zones) is decisive. A distinction must then be made between the “normal” baseline and artificial baselines (straight baselines, UNCLOS Article 7; and archipelagic baselines, UNCLOS Article 47). I will now concentrate on the “normal” baseline and leave the somewhat more technical issues of straight and archipelagic baselines aside.

I would like to begin by first acknowledging and thanking Bogdan Aurescu, my Co-chair and co-author of the International Law Commission (ILC) Study Group on Sea-Level Rise First Issues Paper on the law of the sea whose contribution is very much part of this presentation.