Boundary Disputes Research Articles

Boundary Dispute and Its Resolution

Boundary Dispute and Its Resolution

An analysis of Kenya-Somalia Maritime Territorial Dispute in IR perspective

Kenya-Somalia relations have been strained for some time due to economic and maritime boundary disputes. The area under dispute is a region in the Indian Ocean region stretching for more than 100,000 square kilometers. It is not clear which country could be the rightful owner of the contested area. Furthermore, countries in the global arena have, over the years, gained economic interest in the region as it is rich in oil. These countries include United States, France, Italy, Norway, the United Kingdom, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates (UAE), Qatar, Turkey, and Italy. The International Court of Justice has been the main intermediary of the dispute between Kenya and Somali. However, The ICJ has faced a myriad of challenges in the dispute resolution. At last the International Court of Justice (ICJ) issued its long-awaited verdict in the case of Maritime Delimitation in the Indian Ocean (Somalia v Kenya) on the location of the maritime boundary between Somalia and Kenya on October 12, 2021. The study seeks to understand Kenya-Somalia Maritime Territorial Dispute. The objectives of the study is to analyze the role of the media in the Kenya-Somali maritime dispute and best mode of dispute settlement according to the provisions of Chapter VI of the UN Pacific Settlement of Disputes.

Bangladesh V Myanmar Maritime: Boundary Delimitation Case

This article describes technical difficulties of Bangladesh and Myanmar’s maritime boundary dispute (the “Bay of Bengal case”). This was the first maritime delimitation case that the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS) resolved. A maritime border for the seabed and subsoil of the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) and the extended continental shelf (ECS) was decided by international adjudication for the first time in 2012. It was also the first time detailed technical quantification of seabed areas in the EEZ and ECS was needed for an international forum. After reviewing the ITLOS’s delimitation principles, this article evaluates St. Martin’s Island’s legal status and delimitation effect. The ITLOS concluded that the EEZ and continental shelf legal regimes should not be distinguished in the present instance, but a different approach is proposed for future cases. This article discuss about how to make an equitable boundary and indicates a model for adjusting provisional equidistance lines to accommodate the complicated geophysical rules for the outer limits of the ECS set by the United Nations Law of the Sea Convention (LOSC).

The Colonial Origins of Modern Territoriality: Property Surveying in the Thirteen Colonies

Most scholars agree the rise of states led to modern territoriality. Yet globally the transition to precise boundaries occurred most often in colonies, and there are virtually no systematic explanations of its occurrence outside Europe. This article explains how precise boundaries emerged in the earliest context where they were regularly and generally implemented: seventeenth- and eighteenth-century colonial North America. Unlike explanations of modern territoriality in Europe, it argues property boundary surveys became an entrenched practice on the part of settlers and were a readily available response to intercolonial boundary disputes. After independence, settlers who were accustomed to surveys pursued linear boundaries with Britain, Spain, and Russia. Moreover, the article argues that linear borders (delimited linearly and typically physically demarcated), not sovereignty, are constitutive of modern territoriality. By disentangling the literature’s Eurocentric confusion between modern territoriality and sovereign statehood, the article makes possible a global comparative study of the emergence of modern territoriality.

PERSPECTIVE OF INTERNATIONAL LAW ON MARITIME DISPUTE: CASE BETWEEN KENYA AND SOMALIA

The research analysed the maritime dispute between Kenya and Somalia under the international law perspective. Both states have been experiencing maritime disputes over maritime boundaries of more than 100,000 sq km of seabed in the waters of the Indian Ocean. They began to clash after Somalia accusing Kenya of illegally granting exploration rights to resources in the waters to multinational companies, Total and Eni. As Kenya declared, the waters of the East African Coast are one of the hottest oil exploration prospects in the world, and the contested area has hydrocarbon reserves. The research method is normative legal research. Accordingly, the nature of the research was descriptive-qualitative with data collection techniques by conducting a literature study. The research shows that maritime boundary dispute has worsened diplomatic relations between Kenya and Somalia. Prior to bringing the case to the International Court of Justice (ICJ), the two states agreed to resolve the dispute through bilateral negotiations. However, the case was still unsettled. Therefore, Somalia decided to bring the case before the Court.

Sengketa Batas Wilayah dalam Sistem Pemerintah Daerah (Studi pada Batas Wilayah Kabupaten Sintang dan Kabupaten Sekadau)

This study aims to analyze the settlement of boundary disputes that are available in the Indonesian legal system, analyze the factors that cause boundary disputes in the expansion of the Autonomous Region in Sintang Regency and Sekadau Regency. The type of research conducted is juridical-empirical. The results of the study conclude that: First, the pattern of settlement of territorial boundary disputes is generally through two channels, namely: non-legal settlement of border disputes, and legal settlement. Non-legally mediated by the Ministry of Home Affairs and the Governor. Meanwhile, legal dispute resolution is pursued through litigation. The occurrence of territorial boundary disputes is triggered by the process of regional expansion which does not require regional boundaries as a legal requirement in regional expansion. The requirements that are met are more technical, physical and political. In territorial boundary disputes with district governments, the role of the provincial government is only as a facilitator according to the level of the case dispute.DOI: https://doi.org/10.26905/mlj.v2i2.7156

Underground Land Administration from 2D to 3D: Critical Challenges and Future Research Directions

The development and use of underground space is a necessity for most cities in response to rapid urbanisation. Effective underground land administration is critical for sustainable urban development. From a land administration perspective, the ownership extent of underground assets is essential for planning and managing underground areas. In some jurisdictions, physical structures (e.g., walls, ceilings, and utilities) are also necessary to delineate the ownership extent of underground assets. The current practice of underground land administration focuses on the ownership of underground space and mostly relies on 2D survey plans. This inefficient and fragmented 2D-based underground data management and communication results in several issues including boundary disputes, underground strikes, delays and disruptions in projects, economic losses, and urban planning issues. This study provides a review of underground land administration from three common aspects: legal, institutional, and technical. A range of important challenges have been identified based on the current research and practice. To address these challenges, the authors of this study propose a new framework for 3D underground land administration. The proposed framework outlines the future research directions to upgrade underground land administration using integrated 3D digital approaches.

The Sikkim–Tibet Convention of 1890 and the Younghusband Mission of 1904

The controversy surrounding the Simla Conference of 1913–1914 and the legality of the McMahon line, which was produced by the Conference, has been at the centre of the boundary dispute between India and China. Amidst the diverging opinions amongst scholars and political commentators, the main issue rest on the unresolved question of Tibet’s political status. Was Lhasa authorised to sign treaties for Tibet? Was China the sovereign over Tibet? The answers to such questions are murky and complicated, made more so by the politics and conflicts in the post colonial period. This study attempts to highlight the complicated nature of political authority in Tibet through a study of British policy in Tibet towards the end of 19th and early 20th centuries. The signing of the 1890 Convention with China and the 1904 Convention with Tibet represents two extremes in British foreign policy which attest to the confounding situation presented before the British and the diverging opinions within the British official circles. The period between these two conventions provides a glimpse of the historical background in which the relations between British India, China and Tibet developed subsequently.

The Function of the Delimitation Contradictory Principle in the Settlement of Land Plot Boundary Disputes

Placement of boundaries is necessary to avoid boundary disputes between landowners. The installation of land boundary markings by the owner with the approval of the boundary neighbors witnessed by village officials or authorized officials is called the delimitation contradiction principle. This principle is evidenced by an affidavit of approval which is signed directly by the land owner and adjacent land owner and witnesses who are present in the form of village officials. The principle of contradictory delimitation is a very basic thing that must be done by the owners, this is the main and very important condition for the land to be registered at the land office. Although land registration and the principles in land registration have been regulated in such a way and there is a legal basis governing these provisions, there are still many people who do not care, causing a problem, one of which often occurs in the field, namely the lost land boundary because the owner does not care. maintain and maintain these boundaries properly so that at the time of measurement by the land surveying officer, new land boundaries are installed and do not present bordering neighbors so that errors can occur in determining land boundaries. The problem that often arises is that neighboring neighbors underestimate their presence, consider measurements to be unimportant for certain reasons and because this can lead to disputes with other owners seizing land boundaries and there is no agreement between the parties in determining land boundaries. This indicates that the delimitation contradiction principle is not fulfilled. The procedure used to collect data in this study is in the form of documentation, namely the guidelines used in the form of notes or quotes, searching for legal literature, books and others related to the identification of problems in this study both offline and online. Analysis of legal materials is carried out using the content analysis method which is carried out by describing the material of legal events or legal products in detail in order to facilitate interpretation in the discussion. Basically the application of the delimitation contradiction principle is the presence of the parties concerned, namely the land registration applicant and the parties directly adjacent to the land boundary measurement and mapping carried out by the Land Office. has not been carried out, it is also possible that all of the parties concerned came but at the time of the measurement there was a dispute of opinion regarding the results of the measurement and mapping of land boundaries that was carried out, the application of the Delimitation Contradictory principle had also not been implemented.

An ocean apart? Maritime boundary agreements and disputes in the Arctic Ocean

ABSTRACT The Arctic region is sometimes described as an area of geopolitical competition and boundary disputes. However, in terms of territorial and maritime claims, such portrayals are misleading. Our examination of maritime boundaries in the Arctic, and Arctic state practice concerning baselines, maritime claims and extended continental shelf submissions in the central Arctic Ocean, shows that the Arctic is a maritime space where states have settled disputes before real conflict could emerge. In that sense the Arctic is arguably an ocean apart and the case of the Arctic can be of broader relevance regarding maritime disputes in other regional contexts.

Introductory essay: Polar regions and multi-level governance

ABSTRACT This introductory essay synthesises the contributions to this special issue on polar regions and multi-level governance, showing how they address three important themes in the study of institutional complexes: interplay management; the influence that global institutions and processes exert on regional regimes; and the ways in which states and other actors pursue their interests within complexes of institutions. The institutional complexes in focus here comprise institutions relevant to Arctic Ocean governance, EU–Arctic relationships, Arctic maritime boundary disputes, the Antarctic Treaty System (including CCAMLR), the preservation of cultural heritage and the traditional economy in Newfoundland and Labrador, and scientific research in Svalbard.

Lawyers, immigration consultants and the 33 year jurisdictional war.

This paper examines the 33 year-long jurisdictional dispute between immigration lawyers and immigration consultants over the right to practice immigration law in Canada. Immigration consultants began to play a role in the immigration law field of practice in the 1980s. Their entry into this field of practice has not gone unnoticed by immigration lawyers. The paper focuses on two moments in this jurisdictional dispute; the events surrounding the Supreme Courts' 2001 decision in the case of the Law Society of British Columbia v Mangat and the 2017 hearings of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration. Using an ecological framework to understanding the professions, and professional boundary disputes, this paper examines the reasons why the profession of law has not been able to exert monopolistic closure and prevent immigration consultants impinging on one of their traditional fields of practice. Part of the explanation, I suggest, is that immigration lawyers did not speak with one voice about immigration consultants at the 2017 Standing Committee hearings. The Canadian Bar Association's preferred settlement outcome was for the state to prevent immigration consultants from practicing immigration law. Other lawyers who appeared before the Committee advocated a boundary blurring outcome that would allow immigration consultants to practice immigration law, albeit under somewhat more restricted conditions than were then in place. The state rejected a 'full and final settlement' in favor of lawyers and eventually adopted a boundary 'blurring settlement' outcome to this jurisdictional dispute.

THE INTERNATIONAL CASES CONCERNING JOINT DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENTS (The Case of Saadia Arabia- Bahrain, Japan-South Korea, Thailand-Malaysia)

This article is dedicated to analysing the joint development agreements resolving or temporarily suspending maritime boundary disputes cases between Japan-South Korea, Saadia Arabia-Bahrain, and Thailand-Malaysia. Regardless of whether any delimitation line exists or not, international law allows the parties to agree on delimitation by consulting on the most appropriate conditions or jointly operate on the disputed zone, field or maritime border. If the cross-border dispute on hydrocarbon resources exists, the conclusion of a unitization agreement is not ruled out by the international practice as much. This article identifies the features of the joint development agreements, divides them into the three models recognized internationally, analyzes the main characteristics of each model of the joint development agreements through historical important precedents. Furthermore, the research lets daylight into the essential statements that regulate the fiscal regime, share proportion issues, the sovereign right, and the right to use subsoil and the seabed, within the agreements. Key words: Maritime boundary disputes, joint development agreements, unitization agreements, delimitation, joint development zone, international cases, demarcation of the continental shelf, seabed, disputes on petroleum reservoir, oil fields, production share agreements

China–India Rivalry: The Saga of Game Changers

China and India have surprised the world by their military brinkmanship since mid-2020 amid the global coronavirus pandemic. Also surprising was their sudden disengagement at a key site, Pangong Tso Lake area in the western sector of their disputed boundary, in February 2021. But the continuing crisis has eroded their summit-level consensus reached in 2018 and 2019 that they were neighbourly partners, not rivals. The genesis of this crisis is the clash of their new perspectives on the Kashmir issue which, originally an India–Pakistan affair, has now become a major Chinese concern as well. Two new game changers in the troubled Sino–Indian engagement have caused this crisis. The author suggests a nuanced agreement on mutual military accommodation. Such an accord could create the ambience for serious negotiations to settle the intractable Sino–Indian boundary disputes.

Briefly Noted

On Friday, December 18, 2020, the International Court of Justice issued its decision in Guyana v. Venezuela, on the question of its jurisdiction in the case. Guyana asked the Court “to confirm the legal validity and binding effect of the Award regarding the Boundary between the Colony of British Guiana and the United States of Venezuela, of 3 October 1899).” According to a press release from the Court, Guyana argued that the 1899 award was the final settlement on all questions relating to the boundary line between British Guyana and Venezuela. According to Guyana, the Court's jurisdiction was based on the 1966 Agreement to Resolve the Controversy between Venezuela and the UK over the Frontier between Venezuela and British Guiana (the Geneva agreement), as well as the U.N. Secretary General's decision in 2018 to choose the ICJ as the means to settle the dispute between the two parties. Venezuela opposed the Court's jurisdiction and so the Court separated the question of jurisdiction from the merits of the case. By a judgment of twelve votes to four, the Court found that it has jurisdiction to hear the aspects of the application filed by Guyana that related to the validity of the 1899 award and the question of the definitive nature of the settlement of the land boundary dispute. It ruled that, pursuant to Article IV, paragraph 2, of the Geneva Agreement, the “‘controversy’ that the parties agreed to settle through the mechanism established under the Geneva Agreement concerns the question of the validity of the 1899 Award, as well as its legal implications for the boundary line between Guyana and Venezuela.” Moreover, the Court found that the parties agreed to give the U.N. Secretary General the authority to choose, by a binding legal decision, the means to settle their dispute and that the parties consented to the Secretary General's choice of judicial settlement. This means, ultimately, that the parties consented to the jurisdiction of the ICJ.

William Penn's Holy Experiment: Quaker Truth in Pennsylvania, 1682–1781

William Penn's Holy Experiment: Quaker Truth in Pennsylvania, 1682–1781

Troubled seas? The changing politics of maritime boundary disputes

Maritime space is growing in importance. How states utilise, emphasise and view the maritime domain is changing. At the same time, maritime boundary disputes exist on all continents. Why do states engage in disputes over who owns what at sea? How do states delineate ownership and rights? How are these dynamics evolving? These core questions are examined in this article, which explores and reviews the concept of maritime boundaries and related disputes. The focus is on exclusive economic zones (EEZ), the extended maritime zones beyond territorial waters. Ocean boundaries delineating EEZs are important constructs for everything from oil and gas production to fisheries and environmental protection. Beyond function, trends like an increasing focus on the intangible attributes of disputes at sea, combined with the ongoing institutionalisation of ocean-space since the adoption of the United Nations Convention for the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) in 1982, force us to update our assumptions regarding the political dynamics of ocean-space.

The geo-politics of north Indian Ocean: India's possible retaliations to chinese aggression

Over the last two decades, China and India have shown significant economic and political growth in the Indo-Pacific region. Despite the source of Covid-19, China has successfully recovered and boosting its production. Where India, USA and European countries are experiencing negative growth, China still have 3.6% growth rate. It is the best time for China to show it's hegemony in the Indo-Pacific region. It is reviving its export through the North Indian Ocean Maritime Route. During this Covid-19 pandemic, the boundary dispute between India and China has become worst after 1962. To establish itself as global superpower, China is creating geopolitical pressure on India. India can retaliate this Chinese aggression, obstructing North Indian Ocean Maritime Route. China's geostrategic interest in this region is mainly to protect its ship-liners. Sri Lanka's enticing geostrategic position is favourable for maritime surveillance and security. All most every Chinese ship has to pass the southern coastline of Sri Lanka during the course between Strait of Hormuz and Malacca. Thus, China has invested a lot to establish its strategic posts in Sri Lanka which directly strike Indian dominance in North Indian Ocean. This paper suggests a few counter mechanisms which India could adopt in responses to this Chinese aggression in the North Indian Ocean and Sri Lanka.

Republic of Slovenia v. Republic of Croatia

The Judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) in Slovenia v. Croatia marks the anticlimax of a long-running territorial dispute. It is also only the sixth time the CJEU has issued a judgment in a case instituted by one European Union member against another. Among these cases, it is the first to consider an arbitral award in a dispute between members, the first to consider a boundary dispute between members, and the first to be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. The Court found that it cannot rule on alleged infringements of European Union law when these arise from the breach of a treaty falling outside of the Union's subject-matter competence. Most directly, the Judgment may pose significant consequences for European Union internal affairs in the near term, such as Croatia's ambitions to join the Schengen Area and the Eurozone. More broadly, several of the Court's findings will be relevant beyond the European legal order, particular those concerning the meaning and effect of “ancillary” legal questions, and the bilateral or multilateral character of a dispute involving admission to an international organization.

Recepcija rimskog prava na glagoljici

Zapisnik Petra Lazarića, domaćega bilježnika i kanonika potječe iz 1621. iz Mošćenica. U njemu je na glagoljičkom pismu dokumentirano rješavanje privatnoga diobenog spora među sumještanima u arbitraži. Premda pisana glagoljicom i na hrvatskom jeziku, ta isprava obuhvaća pohrvaćeno latinsko (i manje talijansko) pravnotehničko nazivlje te bilježi niz načela, koncepata i instituta koji su u izvansudskom postupku rješavanja spora dosljedno i pravilno primijenjeni po uzoru na rimsko pravo. Svi bitni pravni elementi ovoga diplomatičkog izvora odražavaju snažne odjeke tradicije rimskoga prava i ius commune. Autor u dva rada analizira sve relevantne institute primijenjene u arbitraži i postupovne i materijalnopravne, povezujući ih s rimskim i kanonskim pravnim uzorima. Ovaj izvor povezuje i s druga dva pravna svjedočanstva, koja su nastala u Mošćenicama u prvoj polovici 17. stoljeća, a koji također odražavaju snažne utjecaje rimske pravne tradicije: Mošćenički statut iz 1637. i lovransko-mošćeničko razgraničenje iz 1646.