Douglas Johnston

The title of this book is a bit amusing, because it soon becomes clear that there are no generally accepted theoretical principles for drawing ocean boundaries, and that ocean boundary-making is a modern discipline with a very short history.

The author is well-informed on his subject and knows the details well, but the book suffers from lack of clarity and logic on a general level. This is evident in Part One, which supposedly presents the "general framework" of boundary-making. In this part the author writes (I) that there are different kinds of boundaries, (II) that various values, interests, and attitudes affect boundary-making, (III) that boundary-making is a matter of bureaucracy, diplomacy, adjudication, etc. This is true, no doubt, but it's quite self-evident. It certainly does not amount to a "general framework" which would help the reader put particular problems of ocean boundary-making into a broader perspective.

Part Two is the "historical" part which discusses a number of ocean-boundary disputes, most of which were resolved between the 1950s and 1980s (one or two cases are from the beginning of the century). This is the best part of the book because it shows what ocean boundary-making amounts to in practice, but the author goes into so much detail in these case studies that they are hard for a layman to digest without skipping some parts. It becomes clear, and the author also notes by way of conclusion, that there has been a conspicuous "de-emphasis on the traditional discussion of applicable rules and principles of international law at an abstract level" (p.210). In other words, no theoretical principles for ocean boundary-making have been generally accepted.

In Part Three the author's limited capacity for generalization again hampers the text. The author sets out to present "the functionalist approach to ocean boundary making", but it's completely unclear what he means by this phrase! The closest thing to a definition is that "according to the functionalist approach to ocean boundary-making, the making of the boundary should be strongly influenced by the administratice reasons for the boundary in question and by the anticipated administrative problems associated with its maintenance" (p. 227). This flat and uninformative definition is unfortunately representative of this book as a whole.… (meer)