Talk:Exclusive economic zone

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Geography (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Geography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of geography on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Fisheries and Fishing (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Fisheries and Fishing, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of fisheries, aquaculture and fishing. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can register your interest for the project and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject International relations  
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Wikipedia.
If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Australia's EEZ[edit]

The figures for Australia's EEZ are incorrect. It is 8,148,250 km2 plus 2.5 million square kilometres confirmed by the UN. The 2.5m figure is now effectively part of Australia's EEZ. The text claims that it is beyond Australia's EEZ. This is incorrect, the EEZ is defined by 200nm or the limit of the continental shelf, which ever is greater. The media ministerial release says: "...confirming Australia’s jurisdiction over an additional 2.5 million square kilometres of seabed." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thefunnelweb (talkcontribs) 23:58, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

No, the EEZ does not include continental shelf beyond 200nm. (For a general definition, see Article 55 in the 1982 UN Convention on the Law of The Sea. Descriptions of Australia's various maritime zones can be found here and here.) The minister's media release does not mention the term "EEZ" once; it talks in terms of Australia's "rights" and "jurisdiction". -- Avenue (talk) 01:34, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I removed "but has requested it not be acted upon at the time in accordance with the spirit of cooperation embodied in the Antarctic Treaty." as no evidence of that assertion exists at the provided citation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:57, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

I've rewritten the Australian section and tried to distinguish between Australian EEZ, Australian Antarctic Territory EEZ, and Continental Shelf. (talk) 11:04, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Diagram Problems[edit]

The diagram shows the continental shelf being further out than the EEZ border, however according to my understanding, EEZ is a political definition while "continental shelf" is a geographical definition, and hence the continental shelf may or may not be closer to the continent than the EEZ border. Maybe having the continental shelf removed would make the diagram more accurate?—Tokek 23:48, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree the diagram is potentially confusing, especially since we do not discuss or even link to continental shelves anywhere in the article. However a state does have some rights over their continental shelf even when it extends beyond the EEZ, and while its definition certainly relies on elements of physical geography, there are some parts that are geographically arbitrary and could be seen as a "political definition". So a brief mention of it here seems worthwhile to me. Ideally the diagram would show both possibilities; a continental shelf ending within the EEZ and also extending beyond it. – Avenue 01:19, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Poor References[edit]

The references such as the for the UK's totals stake to claim are no where to be found, as with other countries. --Reis Scofield (Student Marine Geography, Cardiff)--

Also, does this take into account that after 2005 or 2006 the EEZ in the EU is common to all countries? territorial water still goes to the 12 miles, but from then on, they are now european waters. Don't have a reference, sorry Galf 10:39, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Not only are there no references, but the Falklands appear not to be included! Biofoundationsoflanguage 09:55, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

European Union[edit]

Reportedly (see previous talk section) the EEZ for all EU members will become shared in 2005 or 2006. If true, it should be added to the article. – Beland 16:19, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Map request[edit]

It would be exceedingly useful to have a map showing how the world's oceans are divided up by various countries. It might have to be very large. – Beland 16:19, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it would be very good. Also, if not a single map, then we should start at least including maps for as many countries as we can find. Better if they show territorial waters + EEZ + continental shelf claim. Alinor 18:56, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
I inserted some maps based on Image:EEZ France.png and on information found on this website. Gugganij (talk) 00:22, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Oh, excellent, we now have File:Territorial waters - World.svg. The only thing missing is country labels, like [1]. -- Beland (talk) 18:41, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

the Hainan island case[edit]

I would say this case has nothing to do with EEZ. Jackzhp 00:16, 22 July 2007 (UTC)


Issue 501 of the Atoll Research Bulletin states that Kiribati has the second largest EEZ in the world.

--Henry W. Schmitt (talk) 07:43, 17 January 2008 (UTC)


It seems that the rankings are incomplete, for example, in the total land area + sea, Kazakhstan, Sudan, Algeria, the DR Congo, Saudi Arabia, Indonesia and Mexico are not included, although their land area alone is larger than Madagascar's land + sea. Kazakhstan is land locked, and DR Congo almost landlocked, but Indonesia is full of islands and has a more than 50,000 km of coastlines (the 2nd longest after Canada), so one would expect it to have a large EEZ. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AtikuX (talkcontribs) 07:21, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Good point. I've put an incomplete tag on that section for now. -- Avenue (talk) 06:06, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
OK I've worked through the countries down to Madagascar from Countries_by_area and inserted the ones with larger EEZ+TW+Land. --Uxejn (talk) 21:27, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Ranking listings have no reference. What is the source of this data? Федоров (talk) 17:12, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
The detail below. Also Countries_by_area . --Uxejn (talk) 20:47, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
I added the list of all countries. I also moved it to the end since it is now alot longer. I limited the countries to those on the [List of sovereign states]. However, I do not have the numbers for Northern cyprus, Abkhazia, and Somaliland so they are included in the de jure countries. Feel free to change that if you find the numbers. CK6569 (talk) 21:02, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

New Discussion[edit]

A discussion has been started at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countries/Lists of countries which could affect the inclusion criteria and title of this and other lists of countries. Editors are invited to participate. Pfainuk talk 12:17, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Dispute between Spain and Portugal over the Savage isles[edit]

The last sentence is inaccurate as these isles are not inhabited. There are some environment officers whose aim is to protect the natural reservoir. Moreover, these isles do not have drink water and it is obvious that they do not have a sustainable economy, nor even a flag. --Merliomar (talk) 11:04, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Those isles are in fact inhabited by those officers, as you have stated. For this reason the statement is correct. There are also many other islands (like Porto Santo, that belongs to the same archipelago) and countries in main land (like in the arabic region) that don't have enough or no drink water, but are able to produce it by desalination or import it. Even in Barcelona they have done it over the 2008 Summer. They do have a sustainable economy, explored by the reservoir, whose funds are able to supported the stay of those officers. Rui.marinheiro (talk) 15:50, 27 February 2009 (UTC) ___________________________
Besides the disputes, it seems unusually hard to find a map of the Spanish EEZ. After mre tha 15 minutes of searching, I only got to find this: Cant anyone add it to the rest. Disputes shouldn't be a problem since there is a paragraph about PRC and RoC. --Lori 02:07, GTM+1, 20 November 2011 — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:14, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Issue of edits regarding the "territorial sea"[edit]

I had edited the text to indicate that what is referenced as the "territorial sea" is also known as "internal waters". This is clearly and accurately depicted in the illustration. The outward defined limits, originating at the coast or established baseline, are: sovereign "territorial waters" - out to 12 nmi from baseline, the "contiguous zone" - an additional 12 nmi for a total of 24 nmi from baseline, the "exclusive economic zone" - 200 nmi from baseline and including territorial waters and the contiguous zone.

My edits were reset as though my changes were in contravention to the UNCLOS. They were not.Федоров (talk) 02:02, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Your edits did contradict the text of the UNCLOS, specifically Article 55 (which our article quotes and cites as a source). This reads (in part) as follows: "The exclusive economic zone is an area beyond and adjacent to the territorial sea ..."[2] [emphasis added]. Our illustration (right) can be read as being inconsistent with this definition, if you take it as saying that the EEZ includes the whole 200 nautical mile distance from the baseline indicated by the long arrow. It could also be read as saying that the EEZ is only the portion beyond the contiguous zone (which is also incorrect), if you focus on the colours instead. So the illustration is ambiguous, and should probably be redone.
The "territorial sea" is not the same as "internal waters", either; these are defined in Articles 3-4 and Article 8 respectively.[3] Our illustration seems fairly consistent with the definition of those two terms, although the outer boundary of the territorial sea doesn't bend out far enough around the island, and I don't see why the baseline to the right of the island should run miles offshore. (The illustration's talk page lists some further problems.) -- Avenue (talk) 03:15, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

My apologies. You are correct. The term "territorial sea" is synonymous with "territorial waters". In the case of the illustration, the illustration itself is correct. The lead in text of the article correctly states the situation and notes common understanding. The most important point is that outward distances, with the exception of the "contiguous zone", are measured from the coastal baselines. Thus, technically speaking, the EEZ is only 188 nmi wide measured from the outer edge of the territorial sea. However, its outer edge is 200 nmi from the baselines. This detail is generally of little interest to most and thus the EEZ is commonly considered to be 200 nmi wide.Федоров (talk) 13:48, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Norway's EEZ[edit]

Norway has not established at EEZ around the Bouvet Island. In 2003, they established territorial waters and a contiguous zone there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stigei (talkcontribs) 20:53, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

United Kingdom[edit]

Perhaps a certain French editor under the guise of an IP could explain in what way the United Kingdom's EEZs are different to those of any other country's EEZs, such as the United States' EEZs, Norway's EEZs, Denmark's EEZs, Portugal's EEZs, Australia's EEZs and so on, to warrant all the United Kingdom's EEZs not surrounding the United Kingdom to have to be in a different colour and the point about them not actually being the a part of the United Kingdom needs to be so heavily pushed when those of the US, Norway, Denmark, Portugal, Australia and such are not despite being no different to the UK? Bambuway (talk) 08:11, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I would imagine this has to do with Argentina's claim to the Falklands. That dispute should be included in the Disputes section. Fences&Windows 23:12, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
The guy above, Bambuway, who is actually the sockpuppet of a banned user (User:Signsolid and all his farm of sockpuppets) is a British nationalist who has vandalized various articles since he's been active at Wikipedia. His latest vandalism has been here at the Exclusive Economic Zone article. Apparently it didn't suit him that the article correctly informed readers that the British Overseas Territories and the Crown Dependencies are not part of the UK, despite the fact that it is clearly stated on the 10 Downing Street website (see here), so he changed not just this article, but also the accompanying map to mask the fact that the EEZ of the British Overseas Territories is not part of the UK's EEZ. Not only that, but he also added on the UK's EEZ map the EEZ of the claimed British Antarctica, despite the fact that all claims over Antarctica have been suspended by the Antarctic Treaty of 1959. It's frankly sad that some people don't understand that Wikipedia is an encylopedia which is there to inform people, and not some sort of jingoistic propaganda machine for wannabe nationalists. (talk) 23:27, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
1. If you have evidence of sockpuppetry, file a report at WP:SPI. 2. For the purposes of the article, it is splitting hairs to distinguish the EEZs of the UK from those of its overseas territories. The spat with Argentina over oil drilling in the waters of the Falklands is squarely between the Argentine and British governments.[4] 3. I agree that Antarctic claims are not appropriate for the figure. 4. If you want to be hyperpedantic, at least do it consistently: Puerto Rico, for instance, in not part of the United States of America. Fences&Windows 00:05, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
If Puerto Rico is not part of the US, then it should be listed with a separate color on the map of the US EEZ, just as with the map of the UK EEZ. An encyclopedia is about precision and not oversimplification to satisfy one's national pride. (talk) 01:09, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
The IP is well known, anti-British, French vandal IP who keeps changing his IP but keeps attacking the same articles in the same way. The UK's EEZs are just the same as the EEZs of other countries. He argues the UK's overseas territories are not part of the UK. This is the case for every country with overseas territories. Oh, with one exception, France, whose overseas territories are officially a part of France. That's why he changed the UK's map (despite not changing any of all the others) to exaggerate the UK's overseas territories are not a part of the UK, whereas France's overseas territories are. There is no reason for the EEZs of a country's overseas territories to be a different colour than the EEZ which surrounds the country itself because all the EEZs belong to that country. And there's certainly no reason why the UK's EEZs surrounding its overseas territories should be a different colour to the UK while not the case for other countries. Just as the United States' EEZs, Australia's EEZs, Portugal's EEZs, Norway's EEZs, Denmark's EEZs and so on are all in the same colour, so should all countries' EEZs be in the same colour. All my edit did was to put the UK's map in line with the maps of all the other countries. I'd also like to point out the UK's Antarctic claimed EEZ is no different than the EEZ claims of China, Japan, South Korea and the Philippines also shown in this article. Bambuway (talk) 03:53, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Note to Fences&Windows: the above guy, Bambuway, had his account blocked indefinitely by an admin for the sockpuppetry that I revealed yesteday (in case you wonder why I don't log in, that's because this Bambuway/Signsolid guy is a stalker who has harrassed me in the past, and since he will probably come back to Wikipedia under a new account/new sockpuppet, I prefer not to log in). Anyway, now that this guy is banned from Wikipedia (for the time being at least), the article will hopefully be able to return to civil editing and positive contributions. The EEZ of the overseas territories that are not constitutionally part of their sovereign countries (such as the British Overseas Territories or Greenland) should appear with a color distinct from the EEZ of their sovereign countries, since under international law the EEZs are distinct. I will correct some of the maps when the article is unlocked. I don't know the exact situation for each and every country, so other users should correct the maps too as appropriate. (talk) 03:56, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

All EEZs of a country are exactly the same because all EEZs of that country belong to that country and are controlled by that country. A country holds equal sovereignty over all EEZs it owns. So do you plan on colouring each and every EEZ of every territory of that country a different colour to distinguish it from the other territories? In what way is a country seperate from its territories while its territories are not seperate from each other? All EEZs of a country should be coloured in one colour, just as they always were. There is no reason to seperate the EEZ surrounding a country from all the EEZs surrounding its territories. You're forgetting one major point. The EEZs don't belong to each of the territories, they belong to the country, as it, not the territories, holds sovereignty over all its EEZs. For example, Puerto Rico does not hold sovereignty over the EEZ surrounding it, the United States does. The Unites States owns and controls the EEZ surrounding Puerto Rico, not Puerto Rico. The same goes for the UK and its overseas territories and for all countries and their overseas territories. A country does not hold some form of a lesser sovereignty over the EEZs which surround its overseas territories than the EEZ which surrounds itself, which the different colour scheme would imply and mislead readers into thinking just that. The changes would put the EEZs surrounding overseas territories in the same colour scheme as EEZs which are merely claimed and not held sovereignty over. This article is not about territories being either a part of a country or being an overseas territory, this article is about the EEZs which a country owns, controls and holds sovereignty over, and a country owns, controls and holds sovereignty over all its EEZs, those which surround itself and those surrounding its overseas territories. Hence why the maps were like that in the first place. Check the United Nations Law of the Seas online and you'll see that every country's EEZs equally include those surrounding any overseas territories. (talk) 21:39, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
No, the situation is not that black and white. Let me give you a few examples from the part of the world I am most familiar with.
  1. Australia claims sovereignty over two sectors of Antarctica. These claims are recognised by (I think) four other countries, but many other countries (including the US) dispute their validity. Australia also claims an EEZ extending out from the coast of these sectors. Boundary issues with other countries' neighbouring claims have not been resolved, as far as I know.
  2. Australia also claims sovereignty over Norfolk Island in the Tasman Sea, and an associated EEZ. The boundaries of this EEZ have been agreed with neighbouring countries such as New Zealand.
  3. New Zealand claims sovereignty over a sector of Antarctica. It has not formally claimed an associated EEZ, although it could do so in the future.
  4. The Cook Islands claim an EEZ, which we show in the same colour as the EEZ around New Zealand, on the basis that the Cooks are part of the Realm of New Zealand. However the Cook Islands are essentially self-governing.
Do you think all of these areas should be shown in the same colours as the EEZs immediately adjoining mainland Australia and New Zealand respectively? I don't. I think we would serve our readers better if we indicate some of the more important distinction between them. -- Avenue (talk) 02:09, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
I think the Antarctica thing is going off topic. I was talking about keeping all EEZs on each map the same colour. It would have to be either all the maps display the claims made by countries or not show any claims. Depends on what other editors decide. But keeping all the EEZs of a country the same colour is a must. I don't think it matters to what degree a territory is or isn't self-governing. Territories are not independent and wield no sovereignty. Therefore, soverignty over the EEZ lies soley with the state which wields soverignty over the territory. Any messing around with colours implies misleading POV. i.e. implying the territory is a sovereign state wielding sovereignty over its EEZ, which is not the case. The state wielding sovereignty over the territory wields sovereignty over everthing concerning the territory. i.e. The USA wields sovereignty over Guam's territorial waters, not Guam. I'd like to point out Norfolk Island is 100% an Australian overseas territory. No one disputes it. Australia does not claim sovereignty over it like you said, it exercises it. Same goes for the Cook Islands with New Zealand. You're confusing claimed territories like China over Taiwan rather than established overseas territories like Denmark with Greenland. Australia doesn't just claim Norfolk Island like it claims a part of Antarctica. China claims Taiwan but doesn't hold sovereignty over it, thought it wants to, hence it's a claim. Denmark holds soveringty over Greenland. Greenland is not an independent country. Yes, many have forms of self governing but none are sovereign or independent or merely claimed. I can't believe editors are now trying to state territories with some form of self government are essentially either just disputed claims or independent states. Tell the US government Puerto Rico is either just a claim or an independent state. All overseas territories of France are not a part of France, only 4 of the most populous ones which are overseas regions of the French Republic as France calls them which are; Martinique, Guadaloupe, Reunion and French Guiana, all the others like New Caledonia are only overseas territories. (talk) 03:21, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
All right, let's leave Antarctica as a separate discussion. The US is both able and willing to control its various territories fairly tightly, so there is a good case for not distinguishing between its various territories. That does not mean you can generalise from that to all other countries. Towards the other extreme we have countries like New Zealand that have followed the UN's decolonialisation policies as far as possible, and now have little real control over some of their theoretical "territories". We also have disputed regions like around the Spratly Islands. You have not convinced me that a black and white approach makes sense for these other situations, and more US examples would seem unlikely to help your cause. -- Avenue (talk) 03:49, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

The Spratly Islands are partitioned territory amongst the countries of Vietnam, Philippines, Malaysia, Taiwan, China and Brunei, each claiming them as a whole. They're not a clear example of an overseas territory. Territories either are or are not a territory over a country. Hence they're a territory, not a country. There's a difference. There's no half independent countries like it's seems you're trying to state. I'll use other countries examples like the UK over the Falkland Islands. UK holds sovereignty over them, Argentina claims them. Again there's a difference. Or Bermuda, it's fairly self governing, but it's still 100% a British territory and the UK wields sovereignty over them. It's not independent or half independent. Is Scotland an independent country because it has a parliament or is it a region of the sovereign state the United Kingdom? (talk) 04:00, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
Of course territories have forms of self governance, they have to or they'd cease to function. There are different levels of self governance within territories but none are independent, because they're a territory of another country, a country which wields sovereighty over them. Sovereignty over a territory means that country quite literally "owns" that territory, and everything which goes along with it. It gives the country the right to do as it so pleases with the territory, despite whatever level of self governance the terrtitory has been afforded. It's not been given independence from the country which holds sovereignty over it. For example, the UK removed the self governance of the Turks and Caicos Islands and reasserted complete governance over the territory from Whitehall. (talk) 04:05, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

The point I'm making is that the EEZ surrounding Bermuda, a self governing territory of the UK, is sovereign to the UK just as much as the EEZ surrounding the Turks and Caicos Islands, a territory governed straight from Whitehall. Just as the EEZ surrounding French Guiana, a part of France, is sovereign to France as much as the EEZ surrounding New Caledonia, a French overseas territory. The country owns the EEZ, not the terrtiory, as the country owns the EEZ and the territory. (talk) 04:15, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
Essentially what was said is that self governing territories like Bermuda, are less sovereign to the UK than none self governing territories like the British Indian Ocean Territory. Both territories however are equally under sovereignty. I've never heard anything like that before, essentially claiming self governing territories wield sovereignty over themselves (independent). Do you what sovereignty is? Do you get the difference in the relationship of China with Hong Kong and Taiwan, that one is under sovereignty of China and the other is a claimed territory and the reasons why? (Hong Kong, despite being largely self governing, belongs to China and is under its control. Taiwan is not, it's a defacto independent state, though China claims it belongs to China and is a part of China.) Sovereignty is a country wielding supreme authority over a territory, something which all countries posses over every one of their territories, not matter how self governing they are. A claim is a country claiming it has the right to wield supreme authority over a territory which it does not already wield supreme authority over. I still can't believe you said Norfolk Island is just "claimed" by Australia. You don't think Australia exercises sovereignty over it? In which case it's an independent state or owned by no one? Never seen Norfolk Island at the UN before and no island belongs to no one. The Cook Islands are very self governing, but they're still a territory of New Zealand because New Zealand exercises sovereignty over them, it exercises supremes authority over them, if it didn't they'd be an independent state, free from all New Zealand authority. Supreme ownership and authority (sovereignty) of EEZs lay with the sovereign state, not the territories. I can't even believe I had to write all against such a theory that territories are independent, sovereign states who wield sovereignty (supreme authority and ownership) over things like the EEZ surrounding them, basically that territories own the EEZ surrounding them rather than the sovereign state which owns both the territory and the EEZ. (talk) 04:43, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

EEZ's in Antarctica - Map[edit]

Hi all. What is your opinion about including (or not including) the EEZs around the territorial claims in Antarctica of United Kingdom, New Zealand, France, Norway, Chile and Argentina in EEZ Maps of the respectives countries? Luis wiki (talk) 23:30, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

If the countries in question have claimed an Antarctic EEZ (e.g. Australia - see below), then I think we should show it in a similar way to disputed claims made by other countries elsewhere (e.g. China, Japan) - i.e. in a lighter shade. If they have not yet claimed an Antarctic EEZ (e.g. New Zealand[5]), then we should not show one on their map. -- Avenue (talk) 00:35, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
This Australian Senate document shows their EEZ claim in a map on page 6. -- Avenue (talk) 00:56, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
The claims of countries which have claimed EEZs in Antartica are no different than EEZ claims of China, Japan, South Korea and the Philippines. It is pointed out that these are only claims and not actually controlled EEZs. Bambuway (talk) 03:59, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Fictitious continental shelves[edit]

The dispute with Portugal mentions the continental shelf, with the law stating that unpopulated islands do not have a continental shelf. However, continental shelf is a geological feature, and the Canaries do not have one regardless. Shouldn't we mention somewhere that "continental shelf" in the context of this article is a legal fiction that has nothing to do with the continental shelf? Or am I misunderstanding something? — kwami (talk) 03:51, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Part VI of UNCLOS is quite convoluted. It says the "continental slope" extends to the limit of the "continental margin" which it says includes the shelf, slope and rise, but no less than 200 nautical miles from the baseline. It is this latter provision which gives the Canary Islands a legal continental shelf. Thus the UNCLOS legal definition is separate from the geological feature and a distinction should be mentioned. — Joe Kress (talk) 07:14, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. I'll add that summary to the geo articles, and leave it to those of you who know this stuff to clarify this one. — kwami (talk) 07:30, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
I've now tried to explain the difference in this article. --Avenue (talk) 10:16, 3 September 2010 (UTC)


This template could be of some use on this page, since there are so many distances and conversions given. Nautical miles, miles, and kilometres can all be listed together, I believe. One thing to watch out for is it forces the British "metre". - Ruodyssey (talk) 16:20, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

No. The Manual of Style provides a specific exemption for the nautical mile in international law. "Generally, conversions to and from metric units and US or imperial units should be provided, except: ... When units are part of the subject of a topic—nautical miles in articles about the history of nautical law, ... —it can be excessive to provide conversions every time a unit occurs. It could be best to note that this topic will use the units (possibly giving the conversion factor to another familiar unit in a parenthetical note or a footnote), and link the first occurrence of each unit but not give a conversion every time it occurs." — Joe Kress (talk) 22:03, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Flaw in Japan's EEZ Diagram[edit]

The diagram of Japan's EEZ contains a flaw that should be corrected:

Japan Exclusive Economic Zones.png

There is a portion approximately midway between Taiwan and Kyushu, northwest of Okinawa (roughly bounded by the longitudes 125°E on the west and 128°E on the east and the latitudes 25°N on the south and 30°N on the north), that is colored dark pink to indicate that it is part of "Japan's EEZ" (see legend). Since this area is also claimed by China as part of its EEZ (see China's EEZ diagram below), this portion should actually be colored light pink to indicate that it falls in the category "EEZ claimed by Japan, disputed by others." This would bring it into harmony with this article's China EEZ diagram, which is accurate:

China Exclusive Economic Zones.png

(For a reference on China's EEZ claims, see Resplin.odell (talk) 19:09, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Sea spaces of Ukraine[edit]

In head Rankings by area there are wrong given areas of territorial waters, exclusive economic zone and a continental shelf of Ukraine. The area of territorial waters of Ukraine - 29454 km², a continental shelf - 55750 km², exclusive economic zone - beyond 73000 km². This data from authentic sources. I understand that your data also isn't concocted, but to me this site isn't clear. Whence such there numerals?. Excuse, there can be for not a clear English language, I from Ukraine. (talk) 16:50, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Exploitation of solar energy - is it permitted by agents other than the coastal state?[edit]

UNCLOS Part V, Article 56 (and the lead paragraph) mention that the coastal state has sovereign rights over the "economic exploitation of marine resources, such as the production of energy from water, currents and wind". How about solar energy? Would it be a violation of the UNCLOS if a foreign ship loitered in the EEZ and used solar panels to produce electricity for its own use? -- Dandv(talk|contribs) 11:45, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:23, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Exclusive Economic ZoneExclusive economic zone

Clearly generic from the very first line of the article text. Per WP:CAPS and WP:TITLE: this is a generic, common term, not a propriety or commercial term, so the article title should be downcased. In addition, WP:MOS says that a compound item should not be upper-cased just because it is abbreviated with caps. Matches the formatting of related article titles. Tony (talk) 06:17, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I endorse this proposal for a change in the article title to "Exclusive economic zone". The official text of the UNCLOS does not capitalize the use of "exclusive economic zone". When used to start a sentence "Exclusive" is capitalized. When used as an acronym "EEZ" is capitalized.Moryak (talk) 21:19, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

  • Support per WP:CAPS. I was a bit apprehensive when I saw the title, but as Tony says, it is clear from the first sentence that this is a common term. Jenks24 (talk) 01:24, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Support since it's generic. It doesn't refer to any specific EEZ so it shouldn't be capitalised. Rennell435 (talk) 02:29, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Support per Jenks24 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dohn joe (talkcontribs) 16:35, 11 October 2011
  • Support per Moryak. Applicable section of UNCLOS. — Joe Kress (talk) 17:55, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

im doing a study on historical countries[edit]

im doing a stdy on historical countries and how they would rank if EEZ is included. under which country is golan heights? its was once part of the isreal occupation in the 1967 war. i have figures for isreal at 18,696.61 miles and palestine at 2,423.177 miles im not sure if golan heights is included in isreals figure. should i research golan hiegts? to try figure out how large isreals small empire was with EEZ territory? because if golan heights was not in isreals figure id have to look it up to see how large that territory was. (talk) 16:25, 7 November 2011 (UTC)


The tables should be made sortable (by adding class="sortable").  Liam987(talk) 19:08, 12 June 2012 (UTC)


I am working on Hebrew version of article and add mainly the relevant information for Israel (If someone want to translate the new section about it, it will be very welcome). My current problem isn't about Israel but about Cyprus section that for some reason is missing here and I cannot find any map of it (most of information can be reprieved from UNCLOS or from Sea Around Us project.) Do someone will be able to help me? Thanks, Troll Refaim (talk) 16:09, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

update the information and maps[edit] — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:57, 20 December 2012 (UTC)