By Shivali Yadav

Abstract

While maritime law is an expansive body of law, one aspect often goes underappreciated – the struggle over the ambiguity of the legal status of islands. This issue has profound geopolitical implications, particularly for Small Island Developing States (SIDS). This article explores how international conventions, especially the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), have shaped and often complicated the definitions and criteria required to be an ‘island.’ As rising sea levels threaten to erase physical landmasses, SIDS face the loss of maritime entitlements essential to their sovereignty and survival. This article further explores how dominant states, notably the United States, influence the application of maritime law, reinforcing power imbalances in international governance.

Introduction

It’s hard to overestimate the importance of maritime law, considering that over 70% of the Earth’s surface is covered by oceans. Often overshadowed by terrestrial politics, the seas are no less contested; this complex web of laws and conventions dictates territorial rights, resource exploitation and environmental protections. An important issue in this regard relates to the status of islands, a legal category that not only determines sovereignty but also has the power to shape economic survival and climate justice. As rising sea levels threaten to submerge small island nations, the ambiguity in maritime law transforms from just a legal issue to a crisis. 

This article aims to explore the often-contentious status of islands within maritime law, the evolution of key conventions, and the profound implications for Small Island Developing States (SIDS) facing existential threats in the era of climate change. Moreover, we discuss the role of global powers such as the United States in influencing these legal debates to suit strategic interests without regard to the vulnerable nations. 

What is Maritime Law?

Maritime law, often referred to as admiralty law, is the specialised body of rules and conventions that govern activities and disputes on international waters. It deals with private maritime commerce, navigation and offences occurring on open waters. While it does encompass both domestic statutes and international agreements, it operates largely through international agreements. In contemporary legal order, the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) functions as a ‘constitution of the oceans.’ It is the cornerstone of maritime law and sets the global standards for territorial claims, navigation rights, and maritime boundaries. 

UNCLOS does not operate in isolation. The International Maritime Organisation (IMO), established in 1948, is responsible for maintaining and updating maritime regulations with a particular focus on safety and environmental sustainability. States play a central role in maritime law by ratifying treaties, enforcing regulations through their navies and coast guards, and shaping customary international law through their practices and policies. However, despite their apparent universal applicability, the interpretation and enforcement of these frameworks often depend less on equal international consensus.

Beyond this, maritime law is tasked with framing definitions that have a direct impact on how parties are recognised. This is most clearly seen with islands. 

Evolution of Definitions of ‘Island’

The status of islands under maritime law has been a subject of evolving definitions and considerable debate, reflecting their importance in determining maritime boundaries and resource rights. This definition has evolved through diplomatic conferences, judicial interpretations, and hard-fought arbitration. 

Early efforts, such as the 1930 Hague Codification Conference, tackled the issue of defining territorial waters around islands, particularly groups of islands. The dispute was about whether islands close to each other or the mainland should be considered as a single or separate unit. The 1958 Geneva Convention further refined the legal regime as it was the first formal definition; islands were considered naturally formed land above high time and excluded artificial islands from territorial sea claims to preserve the freedom of the high seas. However, certain complex questions, like the precise criteria for island status, remained unresolved. 

The modern legal baseline for island status is UNCLOS Article 121, which defines an island as a “naturally formed area of land, surrounded by water, which is above water at high tide.” Islands are entitled to a 12-nautical-mile territorial sea and a 200-nautical-mile Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ), which grants them significant sovereignty over maritime resources. This differentiates them from rocks, which cannot sustain human habitation, and artificial islands, which do not generate maritime zones. 

This distinction is crucial for Small Island Developing States (SIDS), which is a group of 38 UN-recognised countries such as the Maldives, Tuvalu and Fiji, whose sovereignty and economic rights depend heavily on their maritime zones. Still, the UNCLOS definition also faces problems when it comes to differing interpretations of what it means to constitute ‘sustaining human habitation’, which may affect the maritime entitlements of the vulnerable island nations. Further, it does not address the challenges that come with the imminent climate change-induced sea-level rise, which threatens to submerge islands, potentially eroding their maritime claims and sovereignty. 

Challenges Faced by SIDS

The term ‘SIDS’ refers to a group of economically vulnerable, often remote, island nations that are disproportionately affected by global environmental and political shifts. For these states, the legal status of islands carries particular significance. Climate change has introduced an unprecedented challenge to this already complex regime. Rising sea levels threaten to submerge many low-lying islands, placing not only their physical territory at risk but also the maritime claims rooted in their existence.

If islands are submerged or reclassified as ‘rocks’ under UNCLOS Article 121, these nations stand to lose sovereign control over vast stretches of ocean that underpin both their economies and statehood. Recognising this, the SIDS have increasingly pushed for the adoption of ‘fixed baseline’ principles, which would lock maritime boundaries to historical geographical coordinates regardless of any future changes that may occur. Significant steps have been taken in this direction. For instance, the 2021 Pacific Islands Forum’s “Declaration on Preserving Maritime Zones in the Face of Climate Change-Related Sea-Level Rise” asserts that rising seas should not dissolve historical territorial claims. 

Similarly, the Commission of Small Island States requested an Advisory Opinion from the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea in 2022, seeking legal clarity on whether UNCLOS obligations extend to mitigating climate change-induced threats to maritime zones. Parallel to legal advocacy, initiatives like IMO’s GreenVoyage2050 and regional frameworks such as the SAMOA Pathway aim to strengthen SIDS’ resilience by supporting decarbonisation and enhancing maritime governance capacity. Despite these efforts, the ambiguity that is prevalent in international law leaves SIDS exposed to legal uncertainty, which underlines the urgent need for global consensus and climate-conscious reform of maritime governance. 

The Influence of the United States

The United States is the world’s most powerful naval power, and so it is no surprise that it wields immense authority in shaping international maritime norms. Despite being a non-signatory to the UNCLOS, it wields influence through diplomatic engagement, participation in the treaty drafting process and customary international law. For instance, it was the USA that introduced the term ‘naturally formed’ to exclude artificial islands during the 1958 Geneva Conference. Moreover, its navy often patrols contested waters in the South China Sea, which reinforces the idea of freedom of navigation, which in turn influences international norms. 

Another move by the US that will have a direct impact on island states is its advocacy for ‘freezing’ maritime baselines to maintain stability amid rising sea levels. They argue that fixed coordinates could safeguard states’ maritime rights even if the coastline changes; this would protect island states and also serve US interests in stabilising territorial disputes such as in the South China Sea, where China’s island-building campaigns aim to extend its maritime reach. The duality that the USA represents of participating in maritime governance while avoiding legal commitments shows how dominant states are able to mold international norms without full adherence. 

Conclusion

The struggle over what constitutes an ‘island’ is not just a legal technicality; it determines the boundaries of nations, the distribution of marine resources, and the survival of entire cultures. As climate change accelerates, the legal ambiguities that once served geopolitical interests now threaten to drown entire nations. The international community faces a clear choice: uphold rigid definitions that erode the sovereignty of Small Island Developing States or reform maritime law to reflect environmental realities and promote equitable governance.

About the Author: Shivali Yadav is a first-year BBA LLB (Hons.) student at Jindal Global Law School. Her areas of interest revolve around international relations, geopolitics, and the intersection of various fields with gender and media

Image Source: Boats Docked on the Port · Free Stock Photo