Practice question
Two adjacent States have plausible UNCLOS-based EEZ entitlements that overlap. The Philippines invokes RA 12064 and announces that its domestic 200-nautical-mile declaration alone conclusively fixes the common international boundary, without agreement or the applicable international process. Which assessment is best?
- The declaration conclusively binds the neighboring State because every domestic maritime statute overrides international delimitation law.
- The overlapping area automatically becomes territorial sea of both States.
- The declaration establishes a claimed entitlement but does not by itself settle the common boundary; Section 12 requires agreement under international-law principles and contemplates UNCLOS dispute procedures if agreement is not reached within a reasonable time.
- Neither State may ever attempt an agreement because UNCLOS forbids negotiated boundaries.
- The State with the longer coast always receives the entire overlap without further analysis.
Legal references
- Republic Act No. 12064, November 7, 2024, Philippine Maritime Zones Act: https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/2/98027; Section 12.
- UNCLOS, Articles 55–58 and 74: https://www.un.org/Depts/los/convention_agreements/texts/unclos/part5.htm; Article 74.
Answer this question in flashcards to review your response and continue practicing.