It has been argued that the expected sea-level rise will lead to the shifting of baselines. It is further held that, as a matter of consequence, this means that all maritime borders depending upon baselines will have to shift accordingly or have to be renegotiated. This would affect the boundaries vis-à-vis neighboring states, opposite or adjacent, as well as the delineation of the exclusive economic zone and the delineation of the continental shelf if no outer continental shelf (no shelf beyond 200 nm) exists. The Baselines Committee of the International Law Association (ILA) stated that in “extreme circumstances [landward changes of the baseline] could result in total territorial loss and the consequent total loss of baselines and of the maritime zones measured from those baselines. The existing law of the normal baselines does not offer an adequate solution to this potentially serious problem.” I see the logic of the arguments based upon Articles 3, 4, and 5 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). Nevertheless, I disagree with the interpretation of UNCLOS Articles 3 and 4. In consequence thereof, I disagree with the qualification that baselines are “ambulatory.” In my view, other considerations have to be taken into account—see below. I am pleased to note that the ILA Committee on sea-level rise in its report took a more balanced view than the Baselines Committee.