Delimitation Cases Research Articles

The ICJ and its Lip Service to the Non-Priority Statusof the Equidistance Method of Delimitation

Since the first maritime boundary delimitation dispute before the International Court of Justice(ICJ) in the North Sea Continental Shelf Cases in 1969 to the most recent maritime delimitation judgment in Maritime Dispute (Peru v Chile), the Court has maintained that the equidistance method of delimitation is not the preferred method for delimiting international maritime boundaries. Yet a close examination of the Court’s decisions shows that by insisting that the equidistance method does not have priority over other methods of delimitation, and yet continuing to apply it in the first instance to maritime delimitation cases before it, the Court has been paying lip service to its stance regarding the equidistance method. In reality, the former is the preferred method of delimitation, and States who submit their disputes to the Court may well expect that this is the method that would be applied by the Court in delimiting their boundaries. In order to prove this position, this article will consider closely how the equidistance method has been and is being applied by the ICJ. It thus traces the life cycle of the equidistance method, from its non-mandatory status at the beginning to its present pre-eminent status in light of the ICJ’s maritime boundary delimitation decisions. It also assesses the rationale behind this development,and argues that the ICJ has by its application of the equidistance method elevated it to the method for international maritime boundary delimitation.

La contribution au droit international de l’affaire de délimitation maritime Bangladesh/Inde dans la baie du Bengale

The arbitration case concerning the delimitation of the maritime boundary between Bangladesh and India provides an original contribution to international law. The delimitation made by the Arbitral Tribunal is a classic application of the method of equidistance and relevant circumstances. However, the Tribunal analyses finely the value to be attributed to ancient maps and confronts itself to the thorny issue of the effect to be attributed to climate change when drawing a border. It contributes greatly to the future of the law of delimitation anchoring strongly the delimitation exercise in a well-defined time frame : the moment of the judgment. This case is also the second maritime delimitation case dealing with the delimitation of the outer continental shelf. By using the principles established by the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea in the Bangladesh/ Myanmar case and by affirming its jurisdiction vis-à-vis the extended continental shelf, the jurisprudence of this Arbitral Tribunal strengthens the implementation of the legal regime continental shelf and advocates a harmonious joint work of the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf and of International Courts and Tribunals.

The ITLOS Judgment in the Bay of Bengal Case between Bangladesh and Myanmar

The Bay of Bengal case is the first maritime delimitation case before the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS); the judgment is a milestone in the jurisprudence of the Tribunal for it to fulfil its designated role of “interpretation or application of the Convention”. This article summarizes the judgment and makes comments on several issues: jurisdictional issues relating to the change of forum, interpretative issues on “innocent passage”, the “equidistance/relevant circumstances” method of delimitation, and finally interpretation of Article 76 of the Convention, with special note on the roles of the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf (CLCS) and the Tribunal in the process.

ITLOS Decision on the Bay of Bengal Maritime Delimitation Case

ITLOS Decision on the Bay of Bengal Maritime Delimitation Case

The Notion of Natural Prolongation in the Current Regime of the Continental Shelf: An Afterlife?

The juridical continental shelf (CS), in terms of Article 76(1) of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (the LOS Convention), relies for its existence on the presence of a continental margin, which in turn depends on the existence of a natural prolongation. This is the principle expounded by this article, in the light of the provisions of Article 76(1) and (3) of the LOS Convention and other types of evidence of State practice. The prolongation, being geological in nature, is a necessary element underlying any claim to a juridical CS. Thus, in litigations, evidence must be led of its existence in support of such a claim. Even if the degree of influence exerted by the doctrine of natural prolongation upon the entitlement to the juridical CS and the delimitation of that entitlement between opposite or adjacent States are yet to be made clear in practice, the doctrine still has a separate life, of increasing importance, in today’s legal regime of the CS. This is said in spite of the International Court of Justice (ICJ)judgment inLibya/Maltathat emphasizes the distance criterion in respect of the continental shelf within 200 nm. The International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS) judgment in the recent Bangladesh/Myanmar delimitation case has provided an interesting interpretation of the notion of natural prolongation, and implicitly confirmed the relevance of the notion to the entitlement to the continental shelf in question. The case law in this regard has been significant, but other categories of State practice are also evolving that may underlie a new trend of giving the notion of natural prolongation a renewed, prominent place in this field.

The State of International Law in The Hague: Developments in International Criminal Law and in the Law of the Sea

In this issue of the Hague Justice Journal-Journal judiciaire de La Haye, two important maritime delimitation cases and two complicated, but crucial issues of modern international criminal law are discussed and further explained. The judgement of the Appeals Chamber of the Yugoslavia Tribunal (ICTY) in the Zelenovic case has concluded the appalling Foca rape cases. Matteo Fiori reviews this gruesome episode in the Bosnian War and examines what the case law on these events has brought for the identification and punishment of the crime of rape. The judgement in the case of Sefer Halilovic led Harmen van der Wilt to a discussion of the intricate concept of ‘effective control’, central to the doctrine of superior command responsibility. A third Appeals Chamber Judgement, this time in the Simba case before the Rwanda Tribunal (ICTR), is discussed by Roland Adjovi focusing on why all the grounds of Appeal were rejected including in respect to the length of the sentence. In general international law, Martin Pratt and Yoshifumi Tanaka discuss two maritime delimitation cases, one decided by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) and another by a special Arbitral Tribunal. The judgements in these cases, Nicaragua v. Honduras and Guyana v. Suriname, show some divergence in the approach to delimitation.

The Qatar v. Bahrain Maritime Delimitation and Territorial Questions Case

During the decade-long Qatar v. Bahrain proceedings, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) rendered two Judgments on jurisdiction and admissibility (1994-1995), followed by its decision not to rely on the 82 Qatar documents challenged by Bahrain (1999), and by Judgment on the merits (2001). This article surveys how these complex proceedings led to settlement of a long-standing dispute in the Arabian/Persian Gulf to the satisfaction of both parties and how have they enriched the contributions of the Court to the development of international law. The contributions of the two Qatar v. Bahrain (Jurisdiction and Admissibility) Judgments, including their Opinions, are highlighted in the context of important issues pertaining to the interpretation of treaties and various aspects of the jurisdiction conferred upon the ICJ by a "framework agreement" (as distinct from a compromis). The analysis of the Qatar v. Bahrain (Merits) Judgment, including its Opinions, substantiates the significant consolidation and further development--in continuation of the formidable jurisprudence of the ICJ and other tribunals, notably the Eritrea/ Yemen Arbitral Tribunal--of the principles and rules governing the acquisition of territorial sovereignty and maritime boundary delimitation.

The ICJ's Judgement (16th March 2001) in the Delimitation (Territorial, Insular and Maritime) Case between Qatar and Bahrain

This article deals extensively with the topics related to the ICJ's Judgement in the terrirorial, insular and maritime dispute between Qatar and Bahrain (the longest yet delimitation case brought before the principal judicial organ od the UNO): relative strength of titles, legal character and effects of a non-jurisdictional decision, the principle of proximity, archipelago state, use of force, historical consolidation of title, acquiescence, uti possidetis, the difference between an island and low-tide elevations, equitable principles, median line, special circumstances, servitudes, protected states, etc.

BOOK REVIEWSBOOK REVIEWSKwiatkowskaBarbaraDrAssociate Director, Netherlands Institute for the Law of the Sea121990373419424JayewardeneH.W., The Regime of Islands in International Law, Publications on Ocean Development, General Editor: OdaShigeru, Vol. 15, M. Nijhoff Publ., Dordrecht 1990, 572 pp. + Indexes, Dfl. 315/$ 159/£ 105.Copyright © T.M.C. Asser Press 19901990T.M.C. Asser PresspdfS0165070X00006914a.pdfdispartBook Reviews1.This in fact can also be advantageous with respect to many problems

BOOK REVIEWSBOOK REVIEWSKwiatkowskaBarbaraDrAssociate Director, Netherlands Institute for the Law of the Sea121990373419424JayewardeneH.W., The Regime of Islands in International Law, Publications on Ocean Development, General Editor: OdaShigeru, Vol. 15, M. Nijhoff Publ., Dordrecht 1990, 572 pp. + Indexes, Dfl. 315/$ 159/£ 105.Copyright © T.M.C. Asser Press 19901990T.M.C. Asser PresspdfS0165070X00006914a.pdfdispartBook Reviews1.This in fact can also be advantageous with respect to many problems