Blackguadism, is the attitude of the modern day politician in Barbados; in fact, it is the prerequisite for political office these days in Bim.

Why can’t Bim use some of that imaginary $600 million stimulus to construct coastal fish farms instead of constructing more roads to clog up our already overburdened road network with more foreign-made steel donkeys? Why not invest in more technologically advanced fishing trawlers to exploit the Atlantic Ocean instead of uselessly plying the already overfished Southern Caribbean waters?
As long as there is talk of hydrocarbons in those waters between T&T and Bim Trinidad will never sign onto any fishing agreement with the weakling Barbados. Why let Bajan fishermen fish freely when Trinidadian businesses can process and export the same fish to Bim already packaged and ready for sale in their already-owned retail outlets? It would be more profitable for Bajan fisher folks to “fish” for mary jane off Vincie Land and St. Lucia than to run the risks of fishing for real jail bait in T&T waters.

Miller………….welcome back…….all TT has to do is wait it out……….they will not have long to wait.

@Miller and Mark. First of all Mark, what do you mean by “blackguardism …is the prerequisite for political office in Barbados”? Where does that enter the discussion? Who is “blackguarding” whom? Barbadians do not seem to understand that the Trinidadians are within their rights to protect their territorial waters. There is a boundary line set and settled by the international tribunal that demarks the boundary between Trinidad and Barbados economic zones. the latitude and longitudinal coordinates are fixed on the maps and indicates not only the coordinates but the actual miles within which the fishing boats have to operate. The barbadian fishermen know this. They have been instructed in this by the Fisheries department as well as the Barbados National Union of fisherfolk Organizations (BARNUFO) and discussions have been held with the Fiishermen and Boat owners aassociation drawing this to their attention. Yet our fishermen INSIST in going into the people’s territorial waters to fish. There are penalties attached to breaches of another countries’ international boundaries. I cannot see Trinidad easily agreeing to allow another country to infringe their boundaries. If we discovered oil within our maritime boundaries I do not see the Barbadian people accepting the encroachment of another country into these areas to exploit our resources. Barbadians HAVE to accept the rights of the Trinidadians. It is they who will decide on the conditions under which they will negotiate an agreement that is to the advantage of Barbados to their detriment. This situation has to do with SOVEREIGNTY, not Political parties.

And don’t let me wake up next morning and find that the boundary line get moved and my mango tree now in my neighbour’s yard. I will declare WAR!

That is so true about a country’s RIGHT AND DUTY to protect what it has from outsiders who want to take it…..but..

…how come when we assert BARBADOS’s right to the little that we have, everybody suddenly know what xenophobic means?
…how come Trickidadians can get to buy up our businesses, closed them down and then sell us inferior Trini products?
…how come they can come here and buy property just as easily as any Bajan?
…any of wunna ever try to buy property in Trickidad?

Hell, the people laugh in we face when Justin Robinson offered to buy a few shares in Republic Bank… LOL, in fact Bushie was sure he heard the chairman ask if Robinson is a brass bowl… 🙂

The answer…
Because we are a country (is that a large tree full of female rabbits?) of brass bowls led by 30 brass bowls….and brass bowls are easy to use as topsies….
We don’t even have the balls to negotiate an exchange like…gi’we a few of wunna flying fish and wunna could tek the whole o bubadus….!
Our approach has been…
Tek the whole Bajan hog…..now can we have some fish please?
Jokers!

So soon from now Venezuela will do the same to Guyana……It is all about who has bigger guns and tanks.

@Alvin

To borrow Hant’s phrase some of us can talk and chew gum at the same time. All agree our fisherfolk should not break the law. The question posed earlier to you: why have both political parties used the outstanding fishing agreement as political fodder.

@David, Because we, the people, choose not to look at facts, and use whatever intelligence we have, instead we choose to accept without question. When Mia came back from the tribunal hearing and “boasted” how Barbados had “won” nobody; including the “Investigative Journalists,” chose to seek out the decision and analyse it. If they had they would have realized that the whole case was not to solve a problem with a fishing agreement, it was to have a decision made on the boundaries of the Exclusive Economic Zones between the two islands.They would then have been able to put the people right, but they chose to concentrate on the fishing agreement. They could have gotten a copy of the decision and seen where the politicians were misleading the people and corrected it. It was easier at the time to side with the government, even though they should have known that the information being handed out was wrong and misleading, and they are still trying to do it. I will not let them though..I obtained a copy of the hearing and analysed it carefully. The arguments and the decisions will surprise you. Try and get a copy. If you can’t when I return I will give you a copy of mins; except that I don’t know who you are.

@Miller

You are correct, the Trinis continue there disembowelment of the local retail sector. Cost-U-Less so has not had any impact on prices.

Alvin Cummins………….scan and post a copy of the document to the website………….a lot of people still don’t know Mia was telling lies and DLP just continued the perpetration of lying to the people.

@Well Well
I am presently in Toronto and don’t have it with me (didn’t expect to be discussing it) but I will be back home around the end of June. The report is over 150 pages long, complete with Maps, but I will see what I can do at that time.

We should be asking why we can’t get an agreement with one of our best friends when we allow them to rape our country for profits.

Seriously. Trinidad only interested in using Barbados for a profit centre.

Who cares whether it was Mama Mia or Kelly.

The Trinidadians are using stall tactics because the have no intention of signing any agreement that may cause them to lose some oil rights.

This is not about fish. It is about Oil and Gas.

More importantly it shows that Caricom, CSME, Caribbean integration is bare b e.

David I once tried to come to an agreement with a Trini chick and despite my best negotiating skills all I got was nuff sweet talk and promises.

I had to settle for being able to pose with “eye candy”

The problem is not Mia or Kelly.It is the Trickidadians.

The issue of the maritime dispute between T&T and Barbados was discussed at length on BU. If you want to read the transcripts see the following link:

http://www.pca-cpa.org/showpage.asp?pag_id=1152

@David and Well Well.
Well Well wanted the arbitration decision posted on this website. I went back to the Hague website and copied off part of the decision. If you access the Hague web site (just go to Yahoo.com type in The Hague and it will come up, then type in Barbados vs Trinidad) and you will get the information you seek.

Barbados / Trinidad and Tobago maritime delimitation commentary
Date: 05 Dec 2006
Author: Tanaka, Yoshifumi
Related to:
Please note, two maps annexed to the Arbitral Award are also avaliable to view with this commentary.

1. Background

During the period between July 2000 and November 2003, Barbados and Trinidad and Tobago engaged in several rounds of bilateral negotiations which included maritime boundary and fishery negotiations. Nonetheless, the Parties differed as to whether the maritime boundary and fisheries negotiations were part of a single negotiating process or separate negotiations. By a Notice of Arbitration dated 16 February 2004, Barbados therefore initiated arbitration proceedings concerning its maritime boundary with the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago pursuant to Article 286 as well as in accordance with Annex VII to the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea. The Arbitral Tribunal was composed of five members: Stephen M. Schwebel (President), Judges Vaughan Lowe, Ian Brownlie, Francisco Orrego Vicuña, and Sir Arthur Watts. The Permanent Court of Arbitration served as Registry for the proceedings and the arbitration took place in The Hague.

2. Maritime Delimitation Effected by the Arbitral Tribunal

After confirming its jurisdiction, the Arbitral Tribunal established a maritime delimitation line by dividing overlapping marine space into three areas.

First, in the Western area, it was common ground between the Parties that the delimitation line was to be found in a provisional equidistance line between their opposite coasts. Nonetheless, claims of the Parties were divided as to whether the provisional equidistance line should be shifted taking relevant circumstances into account. While Trinidad and Tobago maintained that the equidistance line should be the delimitation line in the west, Barbados claimed that the provisional line should be adjusted owing to its traditional fishing activities. In this respect, the Tribunal found that the equidistance line in the west shall be the delimitation line between Barbados and Trinidad and Tobago (para. 271).

Secondly, the central segment extends from Point D of Barbados’ claim to Point A of Trinidad and Tobago’s claim. In this short segment of approximately 16 nautical miles (nm), the Parties did not argue in favour of any adjustment of the provisional equidistance line. Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that the equidistance line was agreed to in this segment (para. 294).

Thirdly, in the Eastern area, the Parties did not agree to request delimitation by means of a single maritime boundary. Although Barbados has requested the Tribunal to determine a single maritime boundary for the Exclusive Economic Zones (EEZs) and continental shelves of the Parties, Trinidad and Tobago contended that the continental shelf and the EEZ are separate and distinct institutions, and that there may therefore be different lines of delimitation for each. On this point, the Tribunal stated that it would firstly determine a single boundary line for the delimitation of both the continental shelf and the EEZ to the extent of the overlapping claims, without prejudice to the question of the separate legal existence of the EEZ and the continental shelf (para. 298). In this area, the Tribunal determined the location of the maritime delimitation line by adjusting a provisional equidistance line taking relevant circumstances into account. Those circumstances include: (i) the relevant coasts and their projection, (ii) proportionality, and (iii) regional considerations. The geodetic lines of the maritime boundary were specified in the Award (para. 382), and it was shown in Map V annexed to the Award. Finally, the Tribunal applied the proportionality test, and concluded that the bending of the equidistance line reflected a reasonable influence of the coastal frontages on the overall area of delimitation, with a view to avoiding reciprocal encroachments which would otherwise result in some form of inequity (para. 379).

3. Some Remarks on the Arbitral Award

It would seem that, overall, the Arbitral Tribunal attempted to maintain consistency with judicial precedents in the field of maritime delimitation. In paragraph 243 of the Award, the Arbitral Tribunal explicitly stated that it was necessary that the delimitation be consistent with legal principle as established in decided cases, in order that States in other disputes be assisted in the negotiations in search of an equitable solution that was required by Articles 74 or 83 of the Convention. In relation to this, three comments can be made.

First, as Barbados and Trinidad and Tobago are Parties to the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, Articles 74 (1) and 83 (1) of the Convention are law applicable to the maritime delimitation in the present case. Nonetheless, these articles omit any reference to a method of delimitation because of the need for a compromise in the Third UN Conference on the Law of the Sea. In this respect, the Arbitral Tribunal ruled in paragraph 242 that:

“The determination of the line of delimitation thus normally follows a two-step approach. First, a provisional line of equidistance is posited as a hypothesis and a practical starting point. While a convenient starting point, equidistance alone will in many circumstances not ensure an equitable result in the light of the peculiarities of each specific case. The second step accordingly requires the examination of this provisional line in the light of relevant circumstances, which are case specific, so as to determine whether it is necessary to adjust the provisional equidistance line in order to achieve an equitable result.”

Furthermore, in paragraph 306, the Arbitral Tribunal stated that:

“[W]hile no method of delimitation can be considered of and by itself compulsory, and no court or tribunal has so held, the need to avoid subjective determinations requires that the method used start with a measure of certainty that equidistance positively ensures, subject to its subsequent correction if justified.”

Thus the Arbitral Tribunal adopted the two-step approach or the corrective-equity approach, although it did not accept the compulsory character of the equidistance method. The corrective-equity approach has been adopted in recent decisions relating to maritime delimitations, including: the Greenland / Jan Mayen (1993),1 Eritriea/Yemen (1999),2 Qatar/Bahrain (2001)3 and Cameroon/Nigeria cases (2002).4 It may be said that the validity of the corrective-equity approach was confirmed in this arbitration.5 In particular, it is noteworthy that, as with the Cameroon/Nigeria case, the Arbitral Tribunal applied that corrective-equity approach under Articles 74 and 83 of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea.

Secondly, concerning relevant circumstances, the Arbitral Tribunal pronounced, in paragraph 228, that the quest for neutral criteria of a geographical character prevailed in the end over area-specific criteria such as geomorphological aspects or resource-specific criteria such as the distribution of fish stocks, with a few exceptions. In fact, the Arbitral Tribunal did not admit traditional fishing activities by Barbados as relevant circumstances in the delimitation of the Western Area. In so doing, it would appear that the Arbitral Tribunal accepted the predominance of geographical factors over non-geographical factors. It would seem that this view echoed the recent trend of the case law in the field of maritime delimitation. In fact, judicial practice has shown that maritime delimitation has been effected by international courts and tribunals on the basis, in essence, of geographical considerations; and that non-geographical factors, such as economic factors, practice of the Parties, historic rights, national security etc, have played merely a modest role in maritime delimitations. In that sense, it may be arguable that so far as the existing case law is concerned, maritime delimitation is, in essence, of a spatial rather than an economic nature.

Finally, it is to be noted that the Barbados/Trinidad and Tobago dispute gave rise to an interesting issue relating to the delimitation of the continental shelf beyond 200 nautical miles. Barbados and Trinidad and Tobago intensively discussed this subject in written as well as oral pleadings. Whilst the Arbitral Tribunal, for its part, avoided examining this issue in any detail, it appears that arguments by the Parties will provide an important insight into this issue.

Maps IV and VI annexed to the Arbitral Award (PDF)

Trinidad clearly got what it wanted…………….. the delimitation of the continental shelf beyond 200 nautical miles was clearly a separate and distinct issue not arbitrated at that time. politicians and their lies and misrepresentations.

There was a recent announcement that Trickidad will be building a pipeline to Barbados to carry natural gas.

Uh wunda how long it tek to mek dah agreement but it is de Trinis dat sellin an de Bajans buyin ent it?

@Baffy

Yes Baffy million of USD!!!

Only the best to represent Barbados right?

Here is a list of the Barbados dream team and the decision:

BARBADOS

• The Hon Mia A Mottley QC, Deputy
Prime Minister, Attorney General and
Minister of Home Affairs, Agent for
Barbados
• Mr Robert Volterra, Co-Agent, Counsel
and Advocate, Latham & Watkins
• Professor Sir Elihu Lauterpacht CBE, QC,
Counsel and Advocate
• Professor Michael Reisman, Counsel and
Advocate
• Mr Jan Paulsson, Counsel and Advocate,
Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer
• Sir Henry Forde QC, Counsel and
Advocate
• Mr Stephen Fietta, Counsel and Advocate,
Latham & Watkins
• Mr Adrian Cummins QC, Counsel
• Dr David Berry, Counsel
• Ms Megan Addis, Counsel, Latham &
Watkins
• Ms Teresa Marshall, Permanent Secretary,
Foreign Affairs
• Mr Edwin Pollard, High Commissioner
for Barbados in London
• Mr Anthony Wiltshire, Minister/
Counsellor at the Barbados High
Commission in London
• Mr François Jackman, Senior Foreign
Service Officer
• Mr Tyronne Brathwaite, Foreign Service
Officer
• Mr Christopher Parker, Fisheries
Biologist, Fisheries Division
• Ms Angela Watson, President of Barbados
Association of Fisherfolk Organisations
• Mr Anderson Kinch, Fisherman/Boat
owner
• Mr Oscar Price, Latham & Watkins
• Ms Phillippa Wilson, Latham & Watkins
• Mr Dick Gent, UK Hydrographic Office
• Dr Robin Cleverly, UK Hydrographic
Office
• Ms Michelle Pratley, Assistant, Latham &
Watkins
• Ms Claudina Vranken, Assistant, Latham
& Watkins

Trinidad sells, Barbados buys and so it shall be.

Ah Ha, yet we are still to hear anymore about this stolen data.

@islandgal
Good thing you do not live in some parts of St Joseph, where people wake up and find their crops and trees shifted onto their neighbours land overnight..

I don’t have much in the way of insight to add to this very informative discussion. But, an unified Caribbean would surely eliminate the perpetual problem of territorial discrepancies one would think. Leader after to leader in the English -speaking Caribbean has grappled with the problem of Caribbean unification to no avail. And this has led me to ask the very important question :when will they be a concerted effort on the part of regional leaders to make this a reality?

David…………..the air space has already been divvied up, the moguls who own satellites are the owners buying and selling the airspace……….I am not sure about the space used by airlines, but that too is a monopoly controlled by certain entities.