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. Before discussing the content of the crossover agreements, it is advantageous to verify the interests of the parties. When landing in an area, a submarine cable granted a number of federal protection rules. If we wanted to land somewhere else, we wanted the same protection, which means trying to explain another area. This can be done, but requires a lengthy process of evaluation and consultation. The next question is the basis of responsibility. In contractual practice, the predominant and sufficient basis of responsibility is that the connector concerned is damaged. It is therefore not necessary for the damage to be caused by the Crossing Party or by any other person or company for which it is responsible, such as contractors, related companies or employees of those companies. However, in some crossover agreements, the issue of causation is merely an assumption that the Crossing Party might attempt to rebut it, and the burden of proof will fall on it. It seems appropriate that the „Crossing Party” should be held responsible for defects inherent in the connector concerned.
Most agreements do not distinguish between solutions by party, which means that the provisions are symmetrical and the party concerned will adopt the same position as the Crossing Party. Therefore, the person concerned cannot expect the tracking costs to flow from the intersection, simply because he was the first in the region, even though his situation can be described as worse than that of the Crossing Party. However, the party concerned may obtain certain concessions in the event of difficulty access or temporary removal from the Crossing Connector, usually due to special circumstances. Also, most customers in Australia want their ability in Sydney and therefore landing the cable there contributes to our decision to land there. 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). A third advantage is that the crossover agreement can be made much more specific and detailed than the fairly short and general language of UNCLOS. The parties will continue to abide by the principles set out in the CNULOS, but will determine how these principles will apply to the above crossing. The perfect example is the often fairly detailed work of collaboration before, during and after construction. These are much more operational and appropriate than the general language of Article 79, paragraph 5, relating to the consideration of the connector concerned.
This chapter focuses on sea crossings, i.e. sea-bottom crossings outside coastal seas.
