The law and practice in maritime boundary delimitation: lessons for the resolution of dispute between Cote d’Ivoire and Ghana

Abstract

It is unrewarding, especially in a new and still unconsolidated field like that involving the extension of claims by States to areas which were until yesterday ‘no-man’s sea’, to look to general international law to provide a ready-made set of rules that can be used for solving any delimitation problems that arise. This article addresses issues most salient to a sophisticated understanding of maritime boundary delimitation concepts, principles, rules, regulations, norms, customs and practices. The purpose of this article is not to pass any judgment or prescribe any concrete method of resolving the new dispute between Ghana and Cote d’Ivoire, but to critically analyse the applicability of existing and emerging legitimate methods of resolving maritime boundary delimitation disputes, pointing out the controversies and ambiguities in applying those methods as a way of guiding the two parties in dispute, as well as subsequent ones. In abstract terms, the distinction between the general principle of equitable solution and the precise methods of delimitation is left unchanged. The author, using classical cases and State practices as evidence, argues that this distinction has become more and more blurred with the passing of time, and that States in dispute are left with the option to adopt any customary method of choice acceptable to the parties themselves. The article discusses several other emerging methods (such as equidistance, proportionality, shifting of the median line) applying to specific geographical circumstances. It is designed to contribute to existing literature and jurisprudence of maritime delimitation disputes.