PART II. THE SIGNIFICANCE OF MARITIME BOUNDARY
6. The EEZ in the Gulf of Riga
The coastal States of the Gulf of Riga (Estonia and Latvia) are not entitled to wholly cover the Gulf of Riga with their territorial sea. The Estonian system of straight baselines, which is based on the Sõrve Peninsula, Allirahu Islets, Ruhnu Island and Kihnu Island, only excludes the possibility of the existence of a nar-row belt of an EEZ in the Estonian maritime area of the Gulf of Riga. Such an EEZ would have otherwise spanned the middle of the triangular area between the islands of Abruka, Kihnu and Ruhnu (north-west, north and north-east of Ruhnu).
As analysed above, Latvia tacitly recognised Estonia’s system of straight baselines in the Gulf of Riga by agreeing to draw the equidistance line on the basis of them. Both States might have presumed that they managed to exclude an EEZ from the Gulf of Riga, including in the Latvian maritime area.291 Lat-via’s rejection of the Estonian system of straight baselines in the Gulf of Riga on the basis of a claim that they are excessive and illegitimate under Article 7(1) of the LOSC would likely have established the cornerstone for any parallel legal regime of passage rights in the Gulf of Riga for foreign ships and aircraft.
The rejection of Estonia’s straight baselines, which would have signalled Lat-via’s protest against the inclusion of the maritime area north of Ruhnu Island into Estonia’s internal waters, would not have been in the interest of Latvia as it would have indicated for third States the means for enjoying the right of transit passage in the Gulf of Riga. By submitting protests against Estonia’s straight baselines (as established under its domestic law) in the Gulf of Riga, the ships and aircraft of foreign States could have claimed the right of transit passage in this maritime area.292
The applicability of the right of transit passage in the Gulf of Riga would have potentially impacted Latvia as much as Estonia. Thus, by tacitly recognis-ing Estonia’s straight baselines in the course of the maritime boundary delimi-tation in the Gulf of Riga, Latvia effectively contributed to mooting any poten-tial discussion on the applicability of the transit passage regime to foreign ships and aircraft in the Gulf of Riga. Yet this co-operation (either intentional or by default) between the two States would have been truly effective only if the potential for an EEZ in the Latvian maritime area would have been excluded.
This is not the case. The Latvian maritime area does not include any islands,293 which has resulted in the relatively sizeable EEZ in the Gulf of Riga proper. The south-eastern part of the Gulf of Riga includes a belt of an EEZ which is approximately 40 miles long and up to 25 miles wide.294 This maritime area falls outside of Latvia’s 12-miles-wide territorial sea. Also, since the Esto-nian territorial sea, as measured from the straight baseline connecting the
291 See infra section 2 of chapter 1 in Part III.
292 See also infra section 4.2 of chapter 1 in Part III.
293 Notably, close to the Kolka Cape is located a Latvian artificial island which includes a lighthouse.
294 See map 6 in Annex 1.
islands of Ruhnu and Kihnu, could have covered only a small northern part of the EEZ area,295 the exclusion of the EEZ in the Gulf of Riga could not have been possible by means of transferring sovereignty that Estonia would other-wise have had over this area to Latvia analogously to the 1990 Bering Sea Treaty296 or the 2010 Barents Sea Treaty.297 Likewise, the delimitation of the boundary line, by which both States would have agreed to incorporate northern parts of the current Latvian EEZ adjacent to the Estonian straight baseline between Ruhnu Island and Kihnu Island into the Estonian waters while com-pensating this in the other sections of the maritime boundary, could not have excluded the existence of an EEZ in the Gulf of Riga.
Neither does the domestic law of Latvia provide that its maritime area in the Gulf of Riga falls entirely under Latvia’s sovereignty, i.e. under its territorial sea and internal waters. Initially, section 4 of the December 1990 Latvian Law On the Border stipulated in accordance with Article 3 of the LOSC that “Among the territorial waters of the Republic of Latvia shall be regarded the waters of the Baltic Sea to the width of 12 sea miles, counting from the maximum low tide line from the Latvian coast.“298 Subsequent to the 1996 Maritime Boundary Treaty with Estonia, the corresponding provision on the width of the territorial sea was amended and provided as of 1998 that “The territorial sea of the Repub-lic of Latvia, unless specified otherwise in bilateral agreements, shall be the waters 12 nautical miles wide measured from the base line.”299 In 2009, the new Latvian Law on the Border entered into force which defines in section 1(9) the territorial sea of Latvia as “the waters of the Baltic Sea and of the Gulf of Riga of the Baltic Sea in width of 12 nautical miles, counting from the base line, if it has not been otherwise specified by international agreements”.300
295 See maps 5 and 6 in Annex 1.
296 Article 3 of the Agreement between the United States of America and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics on the maritime boundary. Washington 01.06.1990, not yet ratified. Accessible: http://www.un.org/depts/los/LEGISLATIONANDTREATIES/
PDFFILES/TREATIES/USA-RUS1990MB.PDF (01.09.2016).
297 Article 3 of the Treaty between the Kingdom of Norway and the Russian Federation Concerning Maritime Delimitation and Cooperation in the Barents Sea and the Arctic Ocean. Murmansk 15.09.2010, e.i.f. 07.07.2011. Accessible: http://www.un.org/depts/
los/LEGISLATIONANDTREATIES/PDFFILES/TREATIES/NOR-RUS2010.PDF (01.09.2016). See also Ø. Jensen. The Barents Sea: Treaty between the Kingdom of Norway and the Russian Federation Concerning Maritime Delimitation and Cooperation in the Barents Sea and the Arctic Ocean. – 26 The International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law 2011(1), p. 155.
298 Law of the Republic of Latvia „On the Border of the Republic of Latvia“. Adopted December 1990, e.i.f. 10.12.1990. Accessible: http://www.un.org/depts/los/
LEGISLATIONANDTREATIES/STATEFILES/LVA.htm (01.09.2016).
299 State Border Law of the Republic of Latvia. Adopted 27.10.1994, e.i.f. 10.11.1994, section 4(1) subsequent to the 14.10.1998 amendment. Accessible: http://
www.vvc.gov.lv/export/sites/default/docs/LRTA/Likumi/State_Border_Law_of_the_Rep ublic_of_Latvia.doc (01.09.2016).
300 Section 1(9) of the Act on the State Border of the Republic of Latvia, op. cit.
Until quite recently, an authoritative map on the Latvian maritime zones in the Gulf of Riga was not readily available. Yet on July 13th, 2011, the Secretary-General of the United Nations communicated to all Member States of the United Nations that Latvia had two weeks earlier deposited with him, pursuant to Article 16(2) of the LOSC, maps showing the baselines and the outer limits of Latvia’s territorial sea, including the lines of delimitation, as well as a list of geographical coordinates of points defining Latvia’s baselines.301 The Latvian map depicts the limits of the EEZ in the south-eastern part of the Gulf of Riga.302
301 M.Z.N.84.2011.LOS (Maritime Zone Notification). Accessible: http://www.un.org/
Depts/los/LEGISLATIONANDTREATIES/PDFFILES/mzn_s/mzn84ef.pdf (01.09.2016).
302 See map 6 in Annex 1.
PART III. THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE OUTER LIMITS OF MARITIME ZONES FOR THE LEGAL
REGIME OF THE ESTONIAN STRAITS
It has not always been unequivocal that the Gulf of Riga includes an EEZ in the Latvian maritime zone. As subsequent analysis shows, many authors have examined the passage rights in the Gulf of Riga and the Irbe Strait from the perspective of innocent passage. None of them has taken into account the Lat-vian EEZ in the Gulf of Riga.303 The significance that the Latvian EEZ next to Ruhnu Island has on the legal regime of the Irbe Strait and on the Gulf of Riga is discussed next. In particular, it is also examined how a potential change in the outer limits of the Estonian and/or Latvian maritime zones may result in the further alteration of the passage regime in the Irbe Strait and in the Gulf of Riga. The significance of the outer limits of maritime zones for the legal regime of straits is later in this part of the study also scrutinised in the example of the Gulf of Finland.
Chapter 1. The Irbe Strait in the Gulf of Riga