Turkey Brief is a biweekly intelligence summary (INTSUM) produced by the Institute for the Study of War (ISW). This ISW INTSUM series sheds light on key trends and developments related to the Turkish government’s objectives and its efforts to secure them.
Reporting Period: November 10 – 27, 2018

Authors: Elizabeth Teoman with John Dunford, Paul Becker, and Kieran Hatton

Key Takeaway: Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan is accelerating his efforts to consolidate power both in Turkey and Northern Syria. Erdogan is tightening security in response to escalating internal threats in areas of Northern Syria occupied by Turkey. He also advanced his domestic consolidation ahead of the March 2019 Turkish Local Elections by successfully pressuring his main nationalist ally into concessions that likely ensure victory for his ruling Justice and Development Party (AKP). Erdogan likely still intends to attack the Syrian Kurdish YPG in Eastern Syria. However, ISW has previously assessed that conditions are not yet set for such an operation and a decision by the U.S. to establish observation points along the Syrian-Turkish Border will likely further deter imminent action by Turkey.

Turkey took direct action to counteract deteriorating security in occupied Northern Syria. The Turkish Police Special Operations Department announced the deployment of a Syria Task Force to secure the Afrin Region of Northern Aleppo Province on November 15.[1]Turkey seized the majority-Kurdish Afrin Region in March 2018 as part of a cross-border intervention against the Syrian Kurdish People’s Protection Units (YPG). It has since struggled to control the region. The YPG is waging an escalating guerrilla campaign targeting security and governance infrastructure in Afrin. Meanwhile, infighting between opposition groups backed by Turkey in Northern Syria has also contributed to increased lawlessness in Afrin since June 2018. Opposition groups most recently engaged in heavy clashes on November 18, destabilizing large parts of Northern Syria. The Syria Task Force will attempt to address these issues by directly securing critical infrastructure and training a new opposition-led police force for the Afrin Region.

Turkey is also attempting to further consolidate control over its proxies in Northern Syria. Military Police units linked to the Syrian National Army – an opposition proxy of Turkey – implemented a curfew and launched a so-called ‘anti-corruption campaign’ in the border town of Jarabulus in Northern Aleppo Province on November 21. The curfew later expanded to include other key population centers in Northern Syria on November 23 including Azaz, Suran, Marea, and Akhtarin. The crackdown largely targeted opposition factions accused of lawlessness or otherwise refusing to consolidate under the command-and-control of the Syrian National Army and Turkey. Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan is likely using these operations to bolster his control over the proxy institutions built by his administration in occupied Northern Syria.

Erdogan acted decisively to bolster his political alliance with domestic nationalists in Turkey. Erdogan likely coerced the right-wing Nationalist Movement Party (MHP) to maintain an alliance with his ruling Justice and Development Party (AKP) ahead of the 2019 Turkish Local Elections. MHP Chairman Devlet Bahceli stated on November 24 that his party will not nominate candidates for open races in the key urban centers of Istanbul, Ankara, and Izmir.[2] This decision opens the door for gains in all three cities by Erdogan and the AKP. The MHP and its splinter Good (IYI) Party performed well in snap Turkish Parliamentary Elections in June 2018. Further gains in the major cities could have strengthened the MHP at the expense of the AKP and degraded Erdogan’s chances to win a future majority in the Turkish Parliament.

Erdogan has likely set conditions to win another electoral victory within the rigged political system of Turkey. Erdogan remains willing to apply state pressure against both opponents and allies in order to shape political outcomes in Ankara. Bahceli declared his intent to end his electoral alliance with Erdogan on October 23. The Turkish National Police later arrested two dozen individuals affiliated with Alaattin Cakici – an associate of Bahceli – in a nationwide operation on November 16. Cakici is a leader within the right-wing youth movement linked to the MHP and an outspoken critic of the ties between Erdogan and Bahceli. Erdogan and Bahceli met two days later and agreed to reaffirm the political partnership they formalized in February 2018. Erdogan likely directed the arrests as well as ongoing investigations of reportedcriminality within the MHP in order to force a reversal by Bahceli. This action along with ongoing purges of political opponents are likely sufficient conditions for Erdogan to win the 2019 Turkish Local Elections.

Erdogan’s current focus on foreign and domestic consolidation does not preclude a future cross-border military incursion into Syria. Erdogan likely intends to make good on his election promises to pursue interventionist policies against the YPG. This sustained threat has prompted a defensive reaction from the U.S. Anti-ISIS Coalition in Syria. U.S. Secretary of Defense James Mattis stated that the U.S. will establish several observation points along the Turkish-Syrian Border on November 21. Mattis claimed that these posts are meant to prevent incursions by the YPG. In reality, these posts aim to deter any new cross-border operation by Turkey in Syria. Erdogan nonetheless affirmed that Turkey will take “all necessary measures” to eliminate the YPG from Eastern Syria in a scheduled Turkish National Security Council Meeting on November 27.

—
[1] Cankut Tasdan, “Syria Task Force to Provide Security in Afrin,” Anadolu Agency, November 15, 2018, https://www(.)aa.com.tr/en/middle-east/syria-task-force-to-provide-security-in-afrin/1312288.
[2] Ayşe Yıldız and Süleyman Elçin, [“MHP Head Bahceli: We Will Not Nominate in Istanbul, Ankara, and Izmir,”] Anadolu Agency, November 24, 2018, https://www(.)aa.com.tr/tr/gunun-basliklari/mhp-genel-baskani-bahceli-istanbul-ankara-ve-izmirde-aday-gostermeyecegiz/1320071.

Posted by Institute for the Study of War at 9:11 AM 

The Washington Post

An F-35 aircraft is seen at the ILA Air Show in Berlin on April 25, 2018. A push by U.S. lawmakers to bar the sale of 100 F-35s to Turkey could sour relations with Ankara. (Axel Schmidt/Reuters)
By Karen DeYoung November 27
The United States’ often-fraught relations with NATO ally Turkey, which have enjoyed a relative upswing in the wake of American cleric Andrew Brunson’s release from a Turkish prison last month, face another possible nose-dive in the near future.

U.S. lawmakers have threatened to demand the Trump administration delay or cancel delivery of F-35 stealth fighter aircraft the Turks help build and have already paid for, if Turkey does not void its purchase of a sophisticated Russian missile defense system, the S-400.

In a classified report, mandated by the fiscal 2019 defense authorization and sent to Congress just before Thanksgiving, Defense Secretary Jim Mattis repeated his objection to the threat. Cutting off Turkey, whose defense industry produces significant F-35 components, Mattis said, would cause major delays in overall production of the new generation combat plane, according to congressional officials who spoke on the condition of anonymity about the sensitive issue.

The State Department, in charge of foreign military sales, says it is continuing to try to persuade Turkey to buy an alternative missile defense system, the Patriot. Turkey says its needs are urgent and the United States has dithered for years and never made a serious Patriot offer.

“It’s a done deal,” Turkish Foreign Minister Mevlut Cavusoglu said of the S-400 purchase during a visit here last week.

[F-35 crashes for the first time in the jet’s 17-year history]

Separately, Turkey and the United States continue to dispute the U.S. military alliance with Kurdish fighters waging the ground war against the Islamic State in Syria. Turkey considers the Kurdish forces to be terrorists and has shelled Kurdish positions in U.S.-controlled eastern Syria at least twice in the past month, in response to what it said were cross-border Kurdish attacks on its troops.

Last week, Mattis told reporters U.S. forces were setting up observation posts along the border “to call the Turks and warn them” if they see any threat coming from within Syria.

But on Saturday, Turkish Defense Minister Hulusi Akar said he has repeatedly told the Pentagon the observation posts are a bad idea. “It could lead to the perception that U.S. soldiers are somehow protecting terrorist YPG members” from a Turkish counterattack, he told Anadolu, the Turkish news agency.

YPG are the Turkish initials for the People’s Protection Units, the armed wing of the Syrian Kurdish political movement. Turkey says they are part of the militant Kurdistan Workers’ Party, or PKK, the Turkey-based political organization fighting for autonomy within the Turkish state. The United States considers the PKK terrorists, but disagrees that the two groups are one and the same.

“We expect that our U.S. allies cut their relations with the terrorist YPG,” Akar said.

During his meeting here with Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and White House national security adviser John Bolton, Cavusoglu said he also repeated Turkey’s call for the extradition of Muslim cleric Fetullah Gulen, the Turkish citizen who lives in Pennsylvania as a permanent U.S. resident.

Turkey has charged Gulen with responsibility for a failed 2016 coup attempt. Since then, it has arrested or fired from government employment tens of thousands of Turks charged with belonging to what it calls Gulen’s “terrorist organization.” Cavusoglu said he presented Bolton with a list of 83 other Turkish nationals in this country that it wants extradited. The list, he said, was requested by President Trump during a recent telephone conversation with Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan.

The list has long been in possession of the Justice Department, which has repeatedly said the Turks have presented insufficient evidence to justify the extraditions.

Brunson’s release, after more than two years of detention on charges of terrorism related to both Gulen and the PKK, at least temporarily released some of the built-up pressure in the relationship. U.S. appreciation, Trump tweeted at the time, “will lead to good, perhaps great, relations between the United States & Turkey!”

Washington and Ankara have also found themselves more or less on the same side of the international controversy over the killing of Saudi Arabian journalist and Washington Post contributing columnist Jamal Khashoggi in Istanbul last month, although Trump has declined to blame Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman while both the CIA and Erdogan have indicated he was responsible.

Turkish officials have said the Khashoggi case should not affect Turkey’s bilateral relationship with the United States, even if Trump prevails, over strong sentiment in Congress, in his reluctance to punish the Saudis. Trump and Erdogan will both attend the G-20 summit later this week in Argentina, along with the crown prince and Russian President Vladi­mir Putin.

The situation on the Turkey-Syria border poses the most immediate threat of a serious breach in relations, as Turkish troops are poised inside Syria west of the Euphrates River, and just across the border on the U.S.-held eastern side, where much of the territory seized from the Islamic State is controlled by the YPG.

The F-35 problem is unlikely to provoke a shooting war, but poses a far greater risk over the medium and long term.

Turkey believes, and the United States agrees, it lives in a dangerous neighborhood and needs a reliable missile defense system. When the Syrian war next door was particularly hot in 2015, Turkey turned to NATO for defense. Syrian missiles had struck Turkish territory, and Turkey shot down a Russian plane that strayed across its border while aiding the forces of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.

Turkey asked to buy Patriots from the United States, but the request has languished amid Turkish demands for the inclusion of technology transfers neither the U.S. manufacturers nor the U.S. government want to provide. Ankara began negotiating with a Russian defense industry eager to expand its own sales, particularly to a NATO country.

As soon as it was clear that a Russian sale of the S-400, its most advanced system, was in the offing, red lights began flashing at NATO and in Washington.

Turkey, one of the original members of the consortium of eight alliance countries that signed up to produce component parts of the F-35, including elements of the fuselage, landing gear and cockpit, also signed up to buy 100 of the aircraft. The plane is designed to avoid systems like the S-400. Putting them side by side in Turkey is seen as a technological gift to the Russians.

Congress has already passed legislation to impose sanctions on any country that buys sophisticated Russian weaponry. Passage of new legislation to prevent F-35 deliveries already in motion would presumably end Turkey’s co-production and at least temporarily shut down assembly lines for the thousands of planes ordered by the United States itself and by other countries.

Turkey’s first two F-35s, with ownership already transferred and pilots in training, are scheduled for delivery next year, just a few months before S-400 installation is due to begin.

John Hudson and Missy Ryan contributed to this report.

Analysis on the most important global story of the day, top reads, interesting ideas and opinions to know, in your inbox weekdays.

Karen DeYoung

Karen DeYoung is associate editor and senior national security correspondent for The Post. In more than three decades at the paper, she has served as bureau chief in Latin America and in London and as correspondent covering the White House, U.S. foreign policy and the intelligence community. Follow

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/us-turkish-relations-remain-fraught-despite-recent-warming/2018/11/27/b08f52e0-f1ab-11e8-80d0-f7e1948d55f4_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.d4cfd83f6cd6

Want to share this image on your site? Copy and paste the embed code below:

Feel free to share this infographic on Twitter.

Tweet: How much does the United States spend on defense? Learn more https://ctt.ec/k1ayd+ via @PGPFoundation 

Tweet: How much does the federal government spend on defense compared to other priorities? https://ctt.ec/eXuk7+ @PGPFoundation 

Tweet: The U.S. spends more on defense than the next eight countries combined https://ctt.ec/1XakS+ via @PGPFoundation 

Tweet: The U.S. spends more than other countries on defense — both in real dollars and as a % of GDP https://ctt.ec/qpXbD+ via @PGPFoundation 

Tweet: U.S. defense spending is currently below its historical average https://ctt.ec/sFk0e+ via @PGPFoundation 

Tweet: America’s #fiscal future and #NationalSecurity are closely linked. Learn more https://ctt.ec/J0wUS+ via @PGPFoundation 

The fundamental importance of maritime zones and other marine areas is underscored in the United Nations (UN) Sustainable Development Goal 14, which aims to conserve and sustainably use oceans, seas and marine resources. Maritime Limits and Boundaries (MLB) circumscribe and define these maritime and marine spaces, and incorporate the applicable Rights, Responsibilities and Restrictions (RRR). S-121, the widely anticipated marine data standard, provides a new open access method for  providing and exchanging digital representations of MLBs.The fundamental importance of maritime zones and other marine areas is underscored in the United Nations (UN) Sustainable Development Goal 14, which aims to conserve and sustainably use oceans, seas and marine resources. Maritime Limits and

Maritime Limits and Boundaries and Ocean Governance

Efficient and sustainable ocean governance requires, among other things, accessible high-quality data and information to support its decision-making functions. Central to governance is the control of behaviours within defined spaces, in relation to defined objectives, and according to accepted or  imposed value systems. Good governance, therefore, requires information about resources, limits and boundaries, users and stakeholders, legal/regulatory/policy frameworks, and the relevant RRR that control behaviours.

Clarity in relation to limits and boundaries is a cornerstone of good governance. Barring deficiencies in enforcement, governance can break down at any fuzzy edges of governed spaces. Boundary uncertainties may generate governance uncertainties such as: W hat resources to exploit or  manage? How  to be in compliance? W hat to enforce? For  the Maritime Domain, clarity at various scales and in relation to MLBs has long been the focus of international law of the sea. This is reflected in the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), other relevant international binding and non-binding instruments, as well as the laws, regulations and policies of coastal States.

The S-121 standard for  MLBs aims to support the achievement of that clarity. According to the International Hydrographic Organization (IHO) (2018), S-121 will achieve this by: (i) providing coordinate-based spatial representations of MLBs that are accurate, reliable and easy to interpret; and (ii) facilitating States Parties’ obligations to UNCLOS, to deposit their outer limits of maritime zones, together with the lines of delimitations (maritime boundaries) with the Secretary-General of the UN, through the Division for  Ocean  Affairs and the Law of the Sea (DOALOS)  of the Office of Legal Affairs of the United Nations.

Evolution of the S-121 Standard

A number of things have led to the development of the S-121 Standard for  MLBs. These include: (i) UNCLOS requirements for  States Parties to deposit charts and geographical coordinates representing their maritime zones, including lines of delimitation; (ii) the need to develop technical standards for  the collection, storage and dissemination of the information deposited by States so that there is compatibility among various Geographic Information Systems (GIS), Electronic Nautical Charts  (ENC), and other systems developed or  used by them; (iii) a request by UN Member States to the Secretary-General to improve the existing GIS for  the deposit of UNCLOS compliant charts and geographical coordinates, and to implement the developed technical standards in cooperation with relevant international organisations such as the IHO (A/RES/59/24, para. 6); (iv)  a call by the

General Assembly of the United Nations for  Member States to implement international law as outlined by UNCLOS

and thereby enhance conservation and sustainable use of oceans and marine resources. Based on the foregoing, DOALOS, as the designated unit, consulted with the IHO to identify an appropriate standard. This resulted in the formation of the S-121 project team that comprises participants from IHO Member States and the S-121 standard for  MLBs (IHO, 2018).

S-121 aims to:

Be simple, practical and implementable;

Support accurate and precise descriptions of MLBs;

Facilitate States’ communication of official digital representations of their MLBs; Respect the relevant provisions of UNCLOS;

Provide a framework that is extensible by implementing parties to support other maritime delimitation requirements;

Implement the IHO’s established S-100 framework as a product specification to ensure interoperability with other marine data specifications;

Be interoperable and in compliance with relevant IHO (i.e, S-57 S-101) and International Organization for Standardization (ISO)  standards (most notably ISO19152 Land Administration Domain Model (LADM)), thereby facilitating the construction of integrated cadastral systems;

Support versioning, thereby facilitating monitoring and updating; Be linked to authoritative administrative source documents.

Figure 1: Example of S-121 implementation (International Hydrographic Organization 2018).

S-121 is designed to be used as a data model in the administration, management and maintenance of MLB information (Figure 1). The data model is simple and flexible, and is built upon IHO S-100 and ISO 19152 standards (Figure 2). It is also designed, in accordance with ISO TC211 standard, to facilitate data exchange in many different forms.

S–121 Benefits

S-121 is beneficial to data custodians, who can use the standard to maintain and exchange information on MLBs. Official versions can be created for  distribution to stakeholders. The standard can also support legal proceedings, being able to produce output that is legally readable, targeted, and provides historical backtracking and source validation.

Apart from the obvious benefits to ocean governance through the management of MLB information, S-121 has implications for  navigational safety, marine resources management, Marine Spatial Planning (MSP), Marine Cadastre (MC) and Marine Spatial Data Infrastructure (MSDI).

S-121’s ability to manage any MLB has direct benefits for  navigation safety where correct identification of shipping lanes and other maritime limits are critical. This is enhanced by the standard’s facilitation of data exchange among stakeholders, and its interoperability with the future ENC standard, IHO S-101.

On the premise that the standard is commonly adopted, S-121 can contribute to improvements in MSP through increased/more effective data sharing among stakeholders and clarity offered in relation to RRR. MLBs form a fundamental building block for  governance frameworks relating to marine resource management where they delimit spatial extents that are subject to management and protection schemes. S-121 is indispensable for  MC and MSDI that require standard data models for  MLB, data sharing capabilities, RRR clarity, interoperability, and versioning (among other things). Specifically in relation to MC, the literature has already established that ISO

19152 standard is applicable (Sutherland, Griffith-Charles and Davis 2016) and therefore S-121 is also applicable.

Figure 2: S-121 Data Model (from Maltais and Lévesque 2018).

S–121 Receives Official Recognition

S-121 is the fastest evolving data standard. Its development was initiated by the General Assembly of the United Nations in its resolution 59/24. It has already received recognition from the ISO, the Open Geospatial Consortium (OGC), and the United Nations Global Geospatial Information Management (UN-GGIM). In the near future, a liaison project between the S-121 project team and the OGC will engage industry stakeholders regarding implementation and interoperability for  wider use of the standard.

Conclusion

The marine domain has long been established to be of great importance to humanity. States exercise rights over maritime zones and other marine areas to meet their political, socioeconomic and environmental objectives. These objectives require, in part, clear delimitations of MLBs. Although S-121, built upon IHO S-100 and ISO

19152 standards, was initially developed to meet UNCLOS requirements, the standard is accurate and flexible enough to meet the needs of other marine/maritime governance frameworks and systems, including navigational safety, marine resources management, MSP, MC, and  MSDI. It is one of the most eagerly anticipated data standards emerging from the IHO’s S-100 framework and has already received major recognition from key international stakeholders.

More Information/References

International Hydrographic Organization (2018).  www.s-121.com/w/index.php/Main_Page.

Louis Maltais and Serge Lévesque (2018). S-121 Maritime Limits and Boundaries: Status report. Presented

at the 10th IHO Hydrographic Services and Standards Committee, 14-17 May 2018, Rostock-W arnemünde, Germany.

Sutherland, M., C. Griffith-Charles and D. Davis (2016). “Toward the Development of LADM-Based Marine Cadastres: Is LADM Applicable to Marine Cadastres?”. Published in the proceedings of the 5th International Federation of Surveyors (FIG) W orkshop on 3D-Cadastres, 18-20 October, Athens, Greece, 14 pages.

https://www.hydro-international.com/content/article/s-121-a-new-standard-for-maritime-limits-and-boundaries

Example of maritime boundary between states.

IHO S-121 Feature Model

Description	Open product specification for maritime limits and boundaries
Initial Document	December 2016
Location	United Nations headquarters in New York
Document Link	IHO S-121

Preamble

S-121 is an open access method of providing digital representation of Maritime Limits and Boundaries (MLBs). Maritime limits and boundaries are constructs used to define maritime zones for nations around the world. With the United Nations Convention of the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), they can form an international legal foundation of the marine domain. S-121 represents an essential extension of the International Hydrographic Organisation S-100 for the administration of the marine domain.

In December 2016, the International Hydrographic Organisation (IHO) distributed the initial document describing the standard at the United Nations headquarters in New York. This meeting began the international effort to define the core features of the S-121 standard.

There are two goals of the S-121 standard, first: to have an open, international, coordinate-based, representation of maritime boundaries and their associated rights, restrictions, and responsibilities (RRRs) that are authoritative and easy to interpret. The second goal is to facilitate the deposit of maritime boundary claims with the Division for Ocean Affairs and the Law of the Sea (DOALOS) in a spatial coordinate-based format that fulfils legal requirements under UNCLOS.

Background

Coastal States, under articles 16, 47, 75, 76 and 84 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, are required to deposit with the Secretary-General of the United Nations charts showing: straight baselines, including closing lines of mouths of rivers and bays, and archipelagic baselines; the outer limits, as well as lines of delimitation between States with adjacent or opposite coasts, of the territorial sea (including roadsteads, article 12); the contiguous zone; the exclusive economic zone and the continental shelf. Alternatively, the lists of geographical coordinates of points, specifying the geodetic datum, may be substituted.

In its resolutions 49/28 of 6 December 1994 and 52/26 of 26 November 1997, the General Assembly requested the Secretary-General to establish appropriate facilities, as required by the Convention, for the deposit by States of maps, charts and geographic coordinates concerning national maritime zones and establish a system for their recording and publicity and to develop and maintain [such] facilities for the deposit by States of charts and geographical coordinates concerning maritime zones, including lines of delimitation, and to give due publicity thereto, as required by article 16, paragraph 2, article 47, paragraph 9, article 75, paragraph 2, article 76, paragraph 9 and article 84, paragraph 2, of the Convention. The Division for Ocean Affairs and the Law of the Sea, Office of Legal Affairs of the United Nations is the unit of the Secretariat which performs these depositary functions on behalf of the Secretary-General, as part of an integrated program on the law of the sea and ocean affairs, distinct from the usual depositary functions of the Secretary-General in respect to multilateral treaties.

Subsequently, in its resolution 59/24 of 17 November 2004, the General Assembly requested the Secretary-General to improve the existing geographic information system for the deposit by States of charts and geographical coordinates concerning maritime zones, including lines of delimitation in particular by implementing, in cooperation with relevant international organizations technical standards for the collection, storage and dissemination of the information deposited, in order to ensure compatibility among the Geographic Information System, electronic nautical charts, and other systems developed by these organizations. Recent General Assembly resolutions have noted ongoing efforts in this regard.

In 2015 the UN passed resolution A/RES/70 nominating a set of 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Target C of SDG 14 encourages states to “Enhance the conservation and sustainable use of oceans and their resources by implementing international law as reflected in UNCLOS”. The indicator 14.C.1 is “the number of countries making progress in ratifying, accepting and implementing through legal, policy and institutional frameworks, ocean-related instruments that implement international law, as reflected in the United Nation Convention on the Law of the Sea, for the conservation and sustainable use of the oceans and their resources”. This work is required in order to assess indicator 14.2.1: “Proportion of national exclusive economic zones managed using ecosystem-based approaches”.

In addition, the General Assembly, in its annual resolutions on Oceans and the law of the sea, calls upon States Parties to the Convention to fulfill their deposit obligations. Most recently, General Assembly resolution 71/257 of 23 December 2016 calls upon States Parties to the Convention that have not yet done so to deposit with the Secretary-General charts or lists of geographical coordinates, as provided for in the Convention, preferably using the generally accepted and most recent geodetic datums (para. 6).

To facilitate the implementation of the Secretary-General’s depositary functions, coastal States are encouraged to deposit the following information, as a minimum:

• Geographic coordinates of points in decimal degrees on the straight baselines and archipelagic baselines in common global geodetic datum such as WGS 84, accompanied, as appropriate, by the relevant national legislation;

• Geographic coordinates of points in decimal degrees on the outer limits as well as lines of delimitation between States with adjacent or opposite coasts for the following maritime zones: territorial sea (including roadsteads); contiguous zone; exclusive economic zone and continental shelf, in common global geodetic datum such as WGS 84, accompanied, as appropriate, by the relevant national legislation. Ideally the points defining the outer limits should be close enough to each other to ensure that the line formed by connecting the points with geodesic lines accurately reflects the outer limit of the maritime zone(s). States Parties are also encouraged to identify in the deposit the points that are part of an international boundary. States Parties are further encouraged to accompany such deposits with the relevant national legislation and/or with references to relevant international treaties.

Accordingly, the Division for Ocean Affairs and the Law of the Sea, of the Office of Legal Affairs of the United Nations, the unit entrusted with carrying out these responsibilities on behalf of the Secretary-General, approached the International Hydrographic Organization with a request to identifying appropriate technical standards. After consultations, the S-121 project team was formed by Member States of the International Hydrographic Organization.

Description

Our planet’s oceans are subdivided by international and national laws into many areas and zones. Certainty over the locations of these zones and the rights, restrictions and responsibilities that apply to them facilitates the development of the world’s ocean resources while providing for the protection of the marine environment and safety of navigation.

At the highest level, these zones define where States exercise sovereignty and sovereign rights, and identify areas beyond national jurisdictions that fall under international jurisdiction. Together, these entities describe the common framework for the Law of the Sea.

Maritime Limits and Boundaries (MLBs) are the constructs used to delineate maritime zones and forms the legal foundation of the marine domain. These maritime zones are established in law by their geographic limits and where such limit is delimiting two neighboring States, this limit is described as a maritime boundary, hence the term Maritime Limits and Boundaries (MLBs).

Example of Maritime Boundaries produced by The Pacific Community

To effectively distribute MLBs for the due publicity obligations under the Law of the Sea Convention and operational purposes, there needs to be a standard framework which ensures compatibility between users and encodes the legal character of the MLBs.

In January 2010, by adopting the S-100 Universal Hydrographic Data Model, the International Hydrographic Organisation (IHO) embarked on the development of a versatile standard framework aligned with the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) 19100 Geographic Information / Geomatics series of standards. The IHO S-100 standard aims to support a wide range of users by developing digital products and transfer standards for the marine community beyond the core hydrographic applications of the IHO. The standard opens the possibility of better marine administration by facilitating the integration of Hydrographic, Scientific and Legislative information.

The Maritime Limits and Boundaries standard – S-121 represents an essential extension of S-100for the administration of the marine domain. It enables MLBs to be described in terms of what they are, what they embody and what they are used for. S-121 establishes a framework for communicating in a digital form the geographic extents of marine areas and the associated rights and restrictions that apply to them. The framework has been developed to rigorously apply the provisions of the United Nations Convention of the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), while allowing sufficient flexibility to accommodate the diverse implementations of the Convention by States under domestic laws.

Wikipedia Territorial waters

Page Links

Links to the other areas of the website are below.

• S-121 News
• Project Team
• Standard
• Implementation
• Exchange Formats
• Documents
• UNCLOS
• S-100

http://www.s-121.com/w/index.php/Main_Page