Cable Crossing Agreements

Crossing agreements are a fascinating example of the conflict between established companies and invaders over the use of the same seabed area. The fundamental question remains: how to strike a balance between the interests of the party, which first moved into an open field, and those of the newcomers? UNCLOS sets out the main principles, but as the review of contractual practices has shown, many additional provisions are needed and different solutions must be found to resolve potential conflict situations. The two parties must therefore agree on a crossover agreement. Finally, the possible “role reversal” during the phase following the completion of subsequent crosses/projects will be more likely to seek balanced solutions than if the crossing in question were considered an isolated case. As noted above, the “Crossing Party” does not need the approval of the party concerned. In general, there is no legal obligation to enter into a cross-border agreement on crossings in international waters.6 In practice, most border crossing situations are related to the signing of a border crossing agreement. Underwater cables are generally purchased under construction, supply and installation contracts. The development of conventional agreements for the design of equipment, supplies and facilities generally raises similar issues in different sectors and equipment. However, some issues are very specific to a supply agreement and may include issues such as the limitation or non-responsibility of the supplier, the application and scope of compensation, supplier guarantees, insurance requirements, security of supply, transfer of ownership/risk and payment scheme. While these questions would also arise for agreement on the interpretation, supply and installation of submarines, the nature of these projects raises new problems specific to this industry. Pipe International has had extensive discussions with all the cables we will be crossing and we are pleased to inform you that we have obtained final approval for the PPC-1 line since April 14, 2008. The figure above shows the transitions before Sydney. As far as the duration of the contract is concerned, this is often open.

It is presumed that the border crossing contract is in effect as long as the crossing exists. Thank you for the amazing information published in your blog. Just a question here. As I understand it, the new cable will be at the bottom of the sea above the existing cable systems. Suppose that if one of the existing cable systems needs some maintenance near the crossing point and it needs to be brought to the surface, what happens to the other cables on that cable. Do they pull them up, or do they make some kind of cut in the cable to bring the necessary segments to the sea surface? It is customary to agree on a maximum amount of financial responsibility for the Crossing Party. The amount, of course, depends on several factors, including the likelihood of damage, a range of losses to be expected and insurance costs. In Norway, pipeline crossings represent an overall ceiling of $100 million for the crossing, which is reflected in industry standards. In Norway again, the ceiling for crossings with telecommunications cables tends to be significantly lower, but the ceiling is often two-tiered: a ceiling for each incident and a higher overall ceiling. There may be national exceptions for owners of pipes and cables entering territorial waters (not just the seabed outside those boundaries, or owners of pipelines and cables used for the use of resources on the continental shelf).