ABSTRACT
Geography and the colonial policies of various maritime powers combined to give the history of international boundaries in this region two distinct qualities. First, there are only four international boundaries on land throughout this extensive zone. Secondly, the procedures which resulted in the present territorial division of this region were appropriate to the ocean which Magellan called Pacific. There are five international boundaries on land and four of them were
associated with the former colony of the Netherlands East Indies, which originated before the colonization of Australia, and the islands of the South Pacific Ocean. The fifth boundary, which encloses Brunei, was determined unilaterally by Britain. The lack of any serious challenge to Britain’s annexation of Australia and New Zealand, which were the main prizes, meant that colonial competition was for comparatively small islands, which were mainly arranged in compact or distinct groups. The fact that only the Solomon and Samoa Islands were divided between two powers is an indication that the colonial authorities generally accepted that the groups should remain intact when they passed under colonial control. There were a number of reasons for this view. First, unlike the situation
in Africa and Asia, the region had been thoroughly explored and the limited economic potential of the islands had been understood. The exploitation of sandalwood, whales, guano, beche de mer and pearl shell, and the cultivation of sugar and cotton promised personal rather than national profits. It seemed almost certain that any challenge to secure a share of an island group where another country had a prior claim would not be worth the effort. Secondly, in some of the groups, such as Hawaii, Tahiti, Tonga, and Fiji, there was a single recognizable ruler. Thirdly, the colonial activities of Britain, France, and Germany in Africa and of Britain and France in Asia discouraged them from seeking territories which would involve additional quarrels and difficulties. So, when the policy of minimum intervention (Ward 1948, pp. 41-9) was ended by the naval powers they adopted the wide seas and narrow straits in place of the mountain ranges and rivers of Africa and Asia to separate their claims. With the exceptions of Britain’s annexations of Australia in 1788 and
Caledonia in 1853, this policy of minimum intervention persisted until the 1870s. It was maintained for a number of reasons, despite requests by the rulers of some kingdoms for protection. The reasons included the fact that the main European commercial activities flourished without official supervision, the opposition o f entrenched missionary groups, and the burden of colonial administration in other parts of the world which were perceived to be more important than the South Pacific Ocean. The policy of minimum intervention was abandoned for three main
reasons. First, in some countries, such as Fiji and Hawaii, the domination o f government by European settlers made annexation desirable to defend the rights of indigenous groups. Secondly, the expansion of trade between the burgeoning cities of Australia, New Zealand, and California, the improving prospect of commerce with Japan and China, and the rising level of economic activity amongst the islands meant that the Pacific Ocean was becoming even more important as an international highway. This development, together with the perceived strategic concerns of Australia and New Zealand, encouraged the maritime powers to focus on the advantages of coaling stations and naval bases rather than the disadvantages of administrative costs. Thirdly, Germany, which was a late starter in the race for overseas territories, began to capitalize on the economic activities of various German firms in the Pacific Ocean. Germany, which had no colonies in Asia and only some of the less desirable properties in Africa, made clear its determination to secure a major share in this region. In addition to four international boundaries on land, the colonial
authorities agreed on three international maritime limits to separate adjacent claims to islands, and two unilateral maritime limits were proclaimed for the same reason. Although only one of these maritime limits has survived, they will all be examined briefly because of the increasing tendency throughout the world for such lines to be used in an unjustified manner as the basis for modern maritime claims.
