{"id":92891,"date":"2026-07-18T21:22:58","date_gmt":"2026-07-19T01:22:58","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/antilla-martinique.com\/?p=92891"},"modified":"2026-07-18T21:27:33","modified_gmt":"2026-07-19T01:27:33","slug":"92891-2","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/antilla-martinique.com\/en\/92891-2\/","title":{"rendered":"The tiny rock that marks a maritime border"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n
\n

<\/h1>\n
\n
\n
By<\/span><\/div>\n

Simon Boxall<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n

\u2013<\/span>A solitary rock, barely visible above the surface of the Caribbean Sea, could influence the future maritime boundary between the Cayman Islands and Jamaica.<\/span><\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/header>\n<\/div>\n
\n

As unlikely as it may seem, the issue centers on one of the most controversial provisions of the <\/span>United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea<\/span><\/a> .<\/span><\/p>\n

Article 121(3) states that \u00abrocks that cannot sustain human habitation or economic life on their own have no exclusive economic zone or continental shelf.\u00bb.<\/span><\/p>\n

These few words have sparked decades of legal debate and have played a central role in maritime disputes brought before international courts around the world.<\/span><\/p>\n

Southwestern Rock<\/span><\/h2>\n

For the Cayman Islands, Article 121(3) raises important questions regarding <\/span>Southwest Rock<\/span><\/a> , a tiny part of the Pedro Bank that has long been part of Jamaica\u2019s archipelagic baseline system and that could one day be taken into account in negotiations over the still-unresolved maritime boundary between Jamaica and the Cayman Islands.<\/span><\/p>\n

\n

\u2013 Advertisement \u2013<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\"\"<\/a>
Jamaica's Maritime Boundary Claims. \u2013 Image: U.S. Department of State, <\/span>
\nOffice of Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific Affairs<\/span><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

To the untrained eye, Southwest Rock seems insignificant. It has no permanent population, no source of fresh water, no crops, and offers little shelter from the sea. It is often described as being submerged\u2014or nearly so\u2014during rough weather.<\/span><\/p>\n

However, maritime law has repeatedly shown that even the smallest details can have significant legal consequences.<\/span><\/p>\n

The U.S. Department of State, in its <\/span>analysis<\/span><\/a> Jamaica\u2019s maritime claims, notes that several features off the island\u2019s southern coast could be considered \u00abrocks\u00bb within the meaning of Article 121(3) of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea.<\/span><\/p>\n

The study also emphasizes that Jamaica\u2019s archipelagic status is based on the inclusion of a series of small islets and cays to the south within its reference archipelagic system. Without these coastal features, the main island of Jamaica would not be sufficient to meet the requirements of Part IV of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea for an archipelagic State.<\/span><\/p>\n

However, a distinction should be made between the use of small offshore features to construct an archipelagic baseline system and the weight that should be given to those same features when an international maritime boundary is ultimately drawn between neighboring states.<\/span><\/p>\n

Over the past two decades, international courts have increasingly favored equitable solutions rather than allowing tiny rocks off the coast to disproportionately influence maritime boundaries. In several landmark cases, the influence of these isolated rocks has been reduced or even completely disregarded when delimiting maritime zones, as granting them full and complete influence would have led to an inequitable outcome.<\/span><\/p>\n

Every maritime dispute is unique, and no international court has specifically ruled on the boundary between the Cayman Islands and Jamaica. The final delimitation of this boundary will depend on negotiations between the United Kingdom, on behalf of the Cayman Islands, and Jamaica, or on another procedure agreed upon by both parties.<\/span><\/p>\n

Nevertheless, the growing body of international case law suggests that the mere existence of a tiny rock off the coast does not automatically mean that it must significantly influence the final demarcation of a maritime boundary.<\/span><\/p>\n

Consequences of Rising Sea Levels<\/span><\/h2>\n

Another study adds an interesting dimension to the discussion.<\/span><\/p>\n

A report<\/span><\/a> The October 2020 meeting of the International Law and Sea-Level Rise Committee of the International Law Association examined the implications of sea-level rise for maritime boundaries and archipelagic States.<\/span><\/p>\n

The authors, David Freestone and Clive Schofield, internationally recognized experts in the law of the sea, have identified Southwest Rock and the neighboring Blower Rock as among the most vulnerable components of Jamaica\u2019s archipelagic base system, noting that <\/span>the statements<\/span><\/a> Historical hydrographic records placed Southwest Rock at only about one meter above sea level.<\/span><\/p>\n

The report concludes that even if Southwest Rock and Blower Rock were to disappear as a result of rising sea levels, Jamaica could redraw its archipelagic baselines using other features further north on Pedro Bank, while complying with the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea.<\/span><\/p>\n

Although Jamaica would lose approximately 3,789 square kilometers (1,462 square miles) of archipelagic waters, it would retain a core archipelagic system that meets the land-to-water ratio required by the convention.<\/span><\/p>\n

This conclusion suggests that Southwest Rock is not essential to Jamaica\u2019s archipelagic status, despite its current role within the baseline system.<\/span><\/p>\n

Fishermen from the Cayman Islands and Pedro Bank<\/span><\/h2>\n

For the Cayman Islands, the debate goes beyond legal interpretation.<\/span><\/p>\n

Long before the existence of exclusive economic zones, continental shelves, and maritime treaties, generations of Caymanian fishermen regularly traveled to Pedro Bank. There, they fished in its abundant waters, hunted turtles, collected seabird eggs, found refuge on its isolated islets, and navigated its reefs using knowledge passed down from generation to generation.<\/span><\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>
Captain Ashton Bodden \u2013 Photo: Simon Boxall<\/span><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

Captain Ashton Bodden remembers his father, Edgar, going on fishing trips on a Cayman Islands schooner with Captain Clyde Scott to Pedro Bank.<\/span><\/p>\n

Sailor Byron Ebanks said that for part of the year, Caymanians even lived on the Pedro Shoals: \u00abIt was part of the Cayman Islands back then. They fished for conch, whelks, and turtles; they did everything out there.\u00bb<\/span><\/p>\n