Delimitation Of Continental Shelf Research Articles

Continental shelf delimitation beyond 200 nautical miles: Mauritius/Maldives and the forking paths in the jurisprudence

Abstract The jurisprudence concerning the continental shelf delimitation beyond 200 nautical miles (nm) over the past decade converged on distinguishing delineation from delimitation, which justifies the appropriateness of the judiciary to delimit the continental shelf beyond 200 nm in the absence of the recommendations issued by the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf (CLCS). Mauritius/Maldives decided by a special chamber of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea departs from the established jurisprudence. By applying a ‘significant uncertainty’ standard that puts the relationship between entitlement and delimitation in the centre, Mauritius/Maldives reasons against exercising jurisdiction over the delimitation beyond 200 nm without affirmative recommendations of the CLCS. Mauritius/Maldives reflects judicial restraint in contrast with a more proactive approach prevailing in previous jurisprudence.

Evaluation of the Concepts of Relevant Coasts and Relevant Area in the Process of Maritime Delimitation of Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf

Uluslararası Adalet Divanı ve Hakemlik Mahkemeleri tarafından deniz alanlarının sınırlandırılmasında ilgili alan ve ilgili kıyılar kavramlarının kullanımı konusunda bir belirsizlik hakimdir. Münhasır ekonomik bölgenin ve kıta sahanlığının sınırlandırılması sürecinde şeffaf, hakkaniyete uygun, öngörülebilir bir sonuca ulaşmak için ilgili alan ve ilgili kıyıların belirlenmesinde hangi kriterlere ihtiyaç duyulduğu netleştirilmelidir. Bu makale, ilgili alan ve ilgili kıyıların belirlenmesi sürecini içeren içtihatları inceleyecektir. İçtihatlardaki farklı yaklaşımlar analiz edilerek, eleştirel bir bakış açısıyla ön ve yarıçapsal iz düşüm, potansiyel hak sahiplikleri, denize doğru uzanma kavramları incelenecektir. Deniz yetki alanlarının sınırlandırılması hukuku, açık ve net bir dizi hukuk kuralından oluşmamaktadır. Bu yüzden, ilgili kıyıların ve alanın belirlenmesine yönelik yaklaşımın karar alma sürecinde aşırı bir yargısal öznelliğe yol açmaması için neler yapılabileceği bu makalede değerlendirilecektir.

Delimitation methodology for the continental shelf beyond 200 nautical miles: Three-stage approach as a way forward?

Abstract Delimitation of the continental shelf beyond 200 nautical miles (nm) is a relatively novel exercise by international courts and tribunals, and a question that assumes theoretical and practical importance is whether the delimitation methodology primarily developed in maritime delimitation within 200 nm can be applied to the delimitation beyond that distance. In contrast to some prevailing arguments that the delimitation methodology for the continental shelf beyond 200 nm should somewhat differ, this article examines whether the delimitation beyond 200 nm can be integrated under the three-stage approach articulated by the ICJ in the 2009 Black Sea case and discusses what methodological problems have been raised in the delimitation process. By analysing the applicability and application of the three-stage approach to the continental shelf delimitation beyond 200 nm in the jurisprudence, this article argues that substantive integration of the delimitation methodology for the continental shelf beyond 200 nm has taken place and is likely to continue. The integrated approach to the delimitation methodology adopted in the Bangladesh v. India case and the Ghana/Côte d’Ivoire case may prove to be guiding precedents that indicate a way forward in the jurisprudence.

Eastern Mediterranean Energy Geopolitics Revisited: Green Economy Instead of Conflict

ABSTRACT Dramatic technological advances in renewable sources of energy and environmental concerns have set in motion a global energy transformation that is expected to have profound geopolitical consequences. For example, the Eastern Mediterranean has been recently affected very hard by the fallouts of the ongoing climate crisis. While frictions among the countries of Eastern Mediterranean about maritime zones and continental shelf delimitation related to sovereign claims and to some degree with ambitions of finding oil and gas have abounded in recent years, the impact of a climate crisis on the same countries has been in recent years extreme. The Mediterranean’s more than half-a-billion inhabitants seem to face highly interconnected climate risks. Reasons for concern include sea-level rise-related risks, land and marine biodiversity losses, risks related to drought, wildfire, alterations of water cycle, endangered food production, health risks in both urban and rural settlements from heat and altered disease vectors. Historically, all these have led to mass migration to the cities, crossing borders to other countries, civil wars, ethnic conflicts and tensions. Against this background, energy transition and fight against common existential threats such as climate change or climate crisis are emerging as more daunting challenges as geopolitical competition to secure control of fossil fuels or to assert sovereign claims in the Mediterranean Sea.

Analysis of the dispute over the delimitation of the continental shelf beyond 200 nautical miles in the Arctic Ocean

In the 1960s, the Arctic glaciers gradually melted, while the rich mineral and fishery resources in the region triggered a new strategic layout design for the countries around the Arctic Ocean, and countries have started to fight for the rights and interests related to the outer continental shelf of the Arctic Ocean in accordance with the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. As of 2023, Russia, Canada, Norway and Denmark have applied to the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf (CLCS) for delineation of the continental shelf, while the U.S. is also striving for the rights and interests of related resources by virtue of its geographical location. At present, in the case of the uncertainty of the delimitation of the outer continental shelf of the Arctic Ocean by the United Nations, the governance guidelines of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea for the outer continental shelf of the Arctic Ocean are relatively in line with the interests of all countries, but there are also certain practical problems, and the United States and non-Arctic countries are bound to join the competition for the relevant rights and interests, and it is difficult to avoid the relevant situation. In this regard, through improving the working mechanism of the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf and formulating the Arctic Treaty, we can gradually realize the governance of the outer continental shelf in the central waters of the Arctic Ocean and maintain the healthy and benign resource circulation and utilization of the relevant sea areas.

The Principle of Equidistance on Continental Shelf Delimitation

In the field of the international law of the sea, continental shelf delimitation has always been one of the most controversial issues. Since the definition of the Equity Principle in the “United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea” (UNCLOS) is relatively vague, the connotation of the Equity Principle depends on the accumulation and development of international judicial precedents, arbitration awards, and state practice. The Equity Principle of continental shelf delimitation has been generally recognized by the international community and has become a part of customary international law. Only when all relevant circumstances are fully considered can a fair delimitation result be obtained and a balance of reasonable interests of all parties be achieved.

Equitable Principles in the Delimitation of the Aegean Continental Shelf

The purpose of the article is to present the role of equitable principles in the delimitation of the continental shelf in the specific situation of the Aegean area. First, the theoretical aspects of the equity in international law and its typology are presented, followed by explaining the role of equitable principles in maritime relations. In turn, the author explains the interdependence of equity and geographical conditions, while stressing the unique geography of the Aegean, bearing heavily on delimitation efforts in the region. The context of the Greek-Turkish continental shelf delimitation dispute is explained, drawing attention to the divergent positions of the two countries. The rules applicable to the dispute at hand are then analysed, with a focus on customary law, in the absence of treaty rules applicable between Greece and Turkey as concerns the maritime delimitation. The role of the international courts and tribunals in finding solutions in the disputes involving the delimitation of the continental shelf is discussed, by also presenting their approach to interpreting and applying equity and equitable principles. The three-stage delimitation method elaborated in the case-law based on equitable principles is finally presented, while drawing attention to the difficulties in applying the method in practice and the resulting therefrom inconsistencies.Finally, the conclusions of the above considerations for the Aegean continental shelf delimitation are drawn and the perspectives for finding a solution in the future are presented.

The Continental Shelf Delimitation Beyond 200 Nautical Miles: Towards A Common Approach to Maritime Boundary-Making, written by Xuexia Liao

The Continental Shelf Delimitation Beyond 200 Nautical Miles: Towards A Common Approach to Maritime Boundary-Making, written by Xuexia Liao

Understanding the Limitations of Behavioralism: Lessons from the Field of Maritime Delimitation

AbstractDo states take court decisions into account when formulating policies? If so, how do they process new judicial input and make policies in response to them? While self-interest and incentives are the usual elements involved in a rational choice explanation of policymaking, behavioralist scholarship casts doubt on whether decisionmakers are able to identify and pursue their interests in a rational manner. We draw on rational and behavioral approaches to formulate different expectations about the process of policymaking and updating in the context of maritime delimitation. We focus on how states formulate policies about the appropriate method of maritime delimitation given relevant decisions of the International Court of Justice. Using a dataset of continental shelf delimitation policies, we find evidence that at least some states change policies in line with court decisions. However, we are unable to distinguish between mechanisms consistent with rational choice and those suggested by behavioralism. We discuss why behavioralist explanations of policymaking processes are difficult to test in a large-N setting. Moreover, we discuss why additional evidence from interviews also proves insufficient, notably due to actors’ tendency to rationalize state policies. We end by suggesting how these problems can be addressed in future research.

Legal issues and prospects for delimitation of continental shelf in the Arctic

This article is dedicated to the relevant problem of delimitation of the Arctic territories. There are currently several different approaches towards this question, but the effective one is the mechanism proposed by the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. The absence of consensus on delimitation of continental shelf is substantiated by the intersection of interests of the countries in the Arctic region and strategically crucial consequences of dividing the Arctic: this is the matter of national security, geopolitical supremacy, increase of economic potential, energy and environmental security. The goal of this research consists in the analysis of recent achievements and prospects for delimitation of continental shelf. The subject of this article is the problems of delimitation of the jurisdiction of countries in the Arctic region. Methodological framework is comprised of the chronological method and method of analysis. The conclusion is made that the definition of state boundaries in the Arctic is a long process; since the decisions of the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf is of advisory nature, it may lead to the disputes between the countries over the rendered decisions. It should be noted that international law has the essential mechanisms and means for the peaceful delimitation of maritime boundaries in Arctic waters. The author believes that the final definition of boundaries in the Arctic would be achieved through the compromise between the polar countries, and thus signing bilateral agreements without relying on recommendations of the Commission. It is underlined that the conventional principle of delimitation of boundaries in the Arctic Ocean does not meet the national interests of the Arctic Five, and requires a different approach due to the peculiarities of the ocean. The scientific novelty lies in the analysis of existing principles, instruments and problems of delimitation of boundaries in the Arctic, as well as in conclusions formulated by the author. The solution to the outlined problems can become the preservation of the international seabed within the framework of the concept common heritage of mankind in the area of the Gakkel Ridge, and in the area of Lomonosov Ridge delineation by the sectoral principle.

The maritime delimitation agreement between Greece and Italy of 9 June 2020: An analysis in the light of International Law, national interest and regional politics

On 9 June 2020, Greece and Italy signed in Athens a maritime delimitation agreement in the Ionian Sea, completed by a joint Greek-Italian proposal to the European Commission for the modification of the Annex 1 of the Common Fisheries Policy and a declaration on the resources of the Mediterranean. This agreement adopts the continental shelf delimitation line agreed in 1977 for the delimitation of the other zones to which both countries are entitled under International Law. It addresses both countries’ fundamental interests: Italy’s essential fishing interests and Greece’s legal and political concerns related to its half century-old dispute with Turkey over maritime delimitation in the Aegean Sea and the Eastern Mediterranean.

Ukraine within the European security system: problems and prospects

This article explores the problems of Ukraine's integration into the European security system. Special attention is given to the questions of cooperation with the European Union, NATO and the OSCE that play an important role in promotion of security in the European continent. Emphasis is made on the analysis of the Ukrainian normative legal framework responsible for inclusion of Ukraine into the core structures of European security. Since 1991 to the present, all presidents of post-Soviet Ukraine from L. Kravchuk to V. Zelensky contributed considerably to the country’s integration into the European security system. With the development of relations with NATO, EU and OSCE, Ukraine sought to cooperate with the Eastern European countries within the framework of the key institutions of European security. Ukraine’s relations with certain Balkan states have experienced intense contradictions, for example dispute over the plan to liquidate Bolhradsky district in Odessa Region that was predominantly populated by ethnic Bulgarians. Since 2004, the territorial dispute between Ukraine and Romania pertaining to delimitation of continental shelf around the Snake Island has not been fully settled. The conflict between the two countries also aggravated due to the policy of reducing the Romanian-language educational establishments in Ukraine. Ukraine’s inclusion into the key structures of the European security is also impeded by Donbass armed conflict, the fact that the government of Ukraine does not recognize the Republic of Crimea's claim to sovereignty, as well as regularization of relations with the Russian Federation. The acquired results allow determining the motives underlying the foreign policy course of Ukraine that is aimed at its accession to the European Union and NATO, as well as the attempts to take its place within the European security system.

Sixty years of the Antarctic treaty: landmark anniversary on the halfway from 1991 to 2048 milestones

Objective. This note aimed to summarize the main achievements and to determine emerging political-legal challenges of Antarctic governance in the light of the 60th anniversary of the Antarctic Treaty. Methods. A Comparative Analysis of academic papers on this matter, and interpretation of the legal provisions of declarations and statements adopted during the past decade by the Antarctic Treaty Parties’ official delegations and authorized representatives. Results. The Antarctic Treaty System (ATS) is widely considered as one of the most successful and robust international legal regimes. It is the first welldeveloped institution to govern all kinds of human activities on the continent-wide large scale in the area covering nearly 10% of Earth’s surface. Peaceful use, international scientific cooperation, and the protection of the Antarctic environment, including the rational use of marine leaving resource in the Southern Ocean, comprise the three basic elements that are and continue to be cornerstones of the ATS. While the Antarctic Treaty Parties have been mostly focusing on two arising issues (climate change and tourism), the ATS is now facing a number of other political and legal challenges, such as heterogeneity amongst memberstates, pressure to internationalize Antarctic governance, unresolved issues of jurisdiction and territorial sovereignty claims, including the delimitation of continental shelf in the Southern Ocean, as well as the growth and diversification of Antarctic resources commercial activities – illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing and bioprospecting etc. Conclusions. The current 60th anniversary of the ATS is laid at the most stabile stage of its development in the first part of twenty-first century, just in the middle of another almost 60-year period between 1991 and 2048 milestones that referring to the banning of mining in Antarctica and possible mechanism of its review respectively. Therefore, now it is the appropriate time to reinforce international efforts through relevant and proactive interaction between government and legislative bodies, to address the most important issues putting the Antarctic Treaty System under pressure and giving rise to new challenges. It is also the appropriate time to update national Antarctic strategic interests and priorities, in particular to define clear vision for Ukraine’s political role in Antarctica.

The Specially-Affecting States Doctrine

The orthodox view of the Specially-Affected States Doctrine (SASD), grounded in the International Court of Justice's (ICJ) 1969 judgment in the North Sea Continental Shelf cases, is that practice leading to the emergence of a customary rule must include that of states “whose interests were specially affected.” The framing of this passage of the North Sea Continental Shelf judgment seems to imply both a positive and a negative importance for the practice of specially-affected states. Such practice is a requirement for the emergence of a new rule of customary international law. Acceptance by specially-affected states is, in other words, necessary but not sufficient for a rule of custom to emerge. Whether practice of specially-affected states can be sufficient to form a general custom is not resolved by this formulation, although it seems reasonable to infer that the ICJ had in mind that the combined involvement of specially-affected and other states was needed for the formation of such a rule of customary international law concerning basic principles of continental shelf delimitation. Conversely, the absence of rule-supporting practice by specially-affected states would have a negating effect on the emergence of a rule of customary international law, despite rule-affirming practice of states not specially affected. On this view, practice of only such states could not crystalize into a custom. One commentator has suggested that the negative construction does not mean that a single specially-affected state necessarily holds veto power over the formation of a new rule of customary international law, but asserted that “[i]f several ‘states whose interests are specially affected’ object to the formation of a custom, no custom can emerge.” Unsurprisingly, given this level of abstraction, such formulations do not themselves provide specificity as to how many (or which) specially-affected states would be sufficient to prevent the formation of a custom in a particular situation.

Is There a Hierarchical Relationship between Natural Prolongation and Distance in the Continental Shelf Delimitation?

Abstract If a coastal State claims a continental shelf beyond 200 nautical miles (nm) that intrudes into the 200-nm limit of another State, the problem arises as to whether there is a hierarchical relationship between natural prolongation and distance, the two criteria of entitlement to the continental shelf provided by Article 76 of the un Convention on the Law of the Sea. A positive answer would mean that the continental shelf beyond 200 nm cannot encroach upon the 200-nm limit, otherwise there would be an area of overlapping entitlements which calls for maritime delimitation. This article attempts to analyse this problem from the perspectives of Article 76, relevant judicial cases, State practice, and the relationship between the regimes of the continental shelf and the Exclusive Economic Zone. It is submitted that the law is not conclusive, though a majority of coastal States tend to adopt a self-constraint approach. In addition, this problem brings further challenges to the law of maritime delimitation.

Apuntes sobre delimitación en derecho internacional del mar

The starting point must be what the I.C.J. had to say in the first continental shelf delimitation case decided by it : the 1969 North Sea Continental Shelf Cases Denmark vs F.R.G. The Court stated that there was no single method of delimitation which is obligatory in all circumstances. Also the Court stated that the state practice in the sense of being “extensive”’ and “virtually uniform” with regard to the method of delimitation employed. Evidence must exist that the states concerned considered that the use of a particular method of delimitation was rendered obligatory by the existence of a rule of law requiring it. The Court and other arbitral tribunals have had no hesitation in borrowing liberally from it to justify the use of particular methods of delimitation in different circumstances.

The Admissibility of Outer Continental Shelf Delimitation Claims Before the ICJ Absent a Recommendation by the CLCS

ABSTRACTIn the 2017 Maritime Delimitation in the Indian Ocean Case, the International Court of Justice stated that “in appropriate circumstances” maritime delimitation claims beyond 200 nm may be admitted before the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf issues a recommendation. This is a deviation from the Court's previous approach in the 2016 Nicaragua v. Colombia (Preliminary Objections) Case. This article follows the evolution of the international case law with respect to the admissibility of outer continental shelf delimitation claims absent a final and binding outer limit, and highlights the positive implications of the International Court's most recent formula.

Evaluation of Scientific Evidence by International Courts and Tribunals in the Continental Shelf Delimitation Cases

ABSTRACTEvaluation of scientific evidence is one of the challenges arising in the tribunal and court cases that deal with the continental shelf beyond 200 nautical miles (nm). Given the difficulties rooted in the interface between law and science regarding the establishment of the entitlement to the continental shelf beyond 200 nm, the current judicial practice offers limited guidance in enhancing transparency and openness in evaluating the scientific evidence. Utilizing procedures providing for the assistance of experts is advisable, as this could facilitate the achievement of an equitable solution in the cases.

Equity and the use of shared water resources

In this article, the author analyses the contents of the notion of equity in international law on shared water resources. It is stated that the content of equity in international law is not fully ascertained. However, for the purpose of distribution and using water resources, the only possible equity is the one that acts as a mitigation of a hard legal rule in its application, for the correction of absurd results, and as the fill-in of legal lacunae or the concretization of widely formulated legal principles. The principle of equitable and reasonable utilization is the basic positive legal rule in this field of international law and it is imbued with this conception of equity. It concurrently serves as a widely formulated legal principle and as an adjusting factor of the application of technical rules on the water resources distribution. However, this formulation of equitable and reasonable utilization is of little help when it comes to contested legal interpretations, competitive interests that preceded the agreement or conflict of technical rule. The author analyses the practice of the International Court of Justice in the delimitation of continental shelves to find a concept of proportionality as a key element of the effect of equity on equitable delimitations. Proportionality is adequate for application in the field of shared water resources use since this field is plagued with similar problems. The application of proportionality emphasizes water needs of riparian states as a key factor in the search for equitable solution, and second to it, on the physical and geographical traits of a watercourse. Furthermore, proportionality aids the harmonious relationship between the principle of equitable and reasonable utilization and the obligations not to cause substantial harm and to protect the environment of international watercourse.

Albania - Greece Agreement on Setting Maritime Boundaries, According to International Law

On March 19, 2009, in Tirana has ended negotiations and initialed Agreement between Greece and Albania on delimitation of continental shelf and other maritime areas belonging, according to International Law. This agreement was signed in Tirana, from two respective Ministers of Foreign Affairs, on April 27, 2009. Since its introduction, agreement states that the maritime borders between Albania and Greece, will be determined on basis of equity distance expressed by medium line. Merits of case would require study of complete file of agreement, including texts of agreement in three languages: English, Greek and English, as well as maps of agreement, which has so far has not been made public. Emphasize that Albania has ratified UNCLOS, on June 23, 2003, while Greece on July 21, 1995. This agreement was ratified by Albanian parliament, but was unapproved by Albanian Constitutional Court, arguing that conflicted with Constitution of Albania and UN Third Convention of International Law of Sea of year 1982. The paper will address importance of signing this agreement, in context of historical, economic and geopolitical, as well as losses or profits caused by its unapproval. DOI: 10.5901/ajis.2015.v4n3p143