Talk:Rockall Bank dispute

Comments

No mention of a Rockall Bank (let alone banking or bankers). Wouldn't just Rockall dispute do it? Rothorpe (talk) 15:31, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

The dispute is broader than just about the rock and extends to the surrounding area of Rockall Bank but yes, this should be made more explicit. Ben MacDui 19:34, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Right. However, Google-searching suggests Rockall Dispute is in fact the usual term. Rothorpe (talk) 22:18, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

As far as I see, the bilateral agreement between UK and Ireland just says that Irelnd no longer claims an extension of the EEZ up to Rockall (Ireland now recognizes the territorial water claims up to the 12nm from Rockall, as well as the 200nm extension of the British EEZ from the westernmost inhabited island in Scotland

But as Rockall is 270 nm away from the westernmost inhabited island in Scotland, Rockall still cannot be part itself of the British EEZ, even if it has an undisputed territorial waters claim of 12 nm around it. So the British EEZ is still 70 nm away to the East of Rockall, and there's still international waters between 12nm and 70nm from Rockall !

Now there remains the question of the extension of the British continental shelf: once again UK cannot claim anything from Rockall but has to find an agreement with other continental shelf extensions with its neighbours (Ireland, Iceland and Denmark). This is still unresolved: the only thing we know is that the Irish EEZ cannot go further to the North and that it excludes the 12nm territorial waters of Rockall and that BOTH Ireland and UK had accepted to not include Rockall for determining their respective EEZ, and that they agree to follow the Law of the Sea.

This means that the continental shelf extension is still unresolved: the corridor to the east of Rockall between its territorial waters and the British (Scotish) EEZ is still international and a dispute remains on this 12 to 70nm corridor for the continental shelf extension of Ireland, UK and Denmark (and the situation of the continental shelf and EEZ, to the west of Rockall 12nm territorial waters is still unsolved, except that Ireland accepts to not extend its EEZ to the north, but the agreement says nothing about the continental shelf extension).

If we consider that the nearest inhabited island is 270 nm away to the west in Soctland, the eastern corridor would be part of the British continental shelf, but not the western corridor which can still be claimed by Ireland, Iceland, and Denmark as well.

Ships navigating between 12nm and 70nm to the east of Rockall are still in international waters, and not in any undisputed EEZ, and still not in any continental shelf extension of UK, Ireland, Denmark or Iceland !

If UK and Ireland found an agreement, it's only on the northernmost extension of the Irish EEZ, and on the fact that UK still cannot claim any EEZ covering Rockall (this British claim is still legitimately disputable by Iceland and Denmark).

The Irish law is perfectly legal (a country can accept to withdraw or abandon a EEZ claim, without necessarily withdrawing its claim on the continental shelf extension), but the British law is still illegal according to the Law of the Sea; Ireland (just like Iceland and Denmark) can still claim a continental shelf extension, and the 4 countries still have to find an agreement (the bilateral agremeent between UK and Ireland is not enough)!

For this reason, the statement that Rockall would be part of the British EEZ is still false. All we know is that it is only part of the undisputed British territorial waters (at 12 nm), and not part of the Irish EEZ.

This is especially important for navigation between Ireland and Denmark: there's still a legal corridor (12 to 70 nm to the east of Rockall) where the British EEZ is still illegal, and where they can travel in international waters (only limited by the continental shelf rights).

And a company in Demmark or Ireland (possibly even Iceland) could still explore the seabed (e.g. for oil, or rare earths) between 12 and 70 nm to the East of Rockall under their respective right to claim the extension of their continental shelf. Under Danish or Irish laws, the EU legislation would still be applicable to this area, even after UK will exit the EU !

verdy_p (talk) 08:30, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

But the statement in the article is this: "Rockall is within the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) claimed by the United Kingdom." (my emphasis) That appears to me to be pretty bomb-proof as far as verification is concerned. Does it need some tweak to the wording? Or perhaps the additional of a (suitably sourced) statement of which states dispute this, or what (again, suitably sourced) authorities consider it 'illegal'? The above argument I don't really follow, as it construes the claim as being based on some inhabited island, but as is clear from the article, the UK base it on St. Kilda, though Iceland does dispute that. And in any event North Uist is also within 200nm. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 06:28, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Dates

As I was reading this article, I noticed that a lot of the dates seemed to reference late 2000's dates as if they were yet to come, which was confusing. An update for this would be most helpful. 96.253.21.94 (talk) 19:53, 6 May 2024 (UTC)