Law Of Maritime Delimitation Research Articles

The Principle of Proportionality in Modern Ius Gentium

The principle of proportionality refers to the criteria for fair and optimal balancing of interests. It is widely applied to international disputes and has gained institutional and scholarly acceptance in the field of international law. This paper aims to explore the longue durée of the principle, drawing on an interdisciplinary perspective on international law. It affirms the traditional role of proportionality in international legal sphere and values its familiar role in introducing flexibility in law, remaining close to its conventional interpretation. However, the paper also questions its contemporary ethos, as it is based historically on its relation to equity. To this end, it examines the historical roots of the principle as part of the early modern law of nations, as well as how such a general principle should be seen as applicable to private relationships. The aim is therefore to re-think the principle of proportionality in modern ius gentium as based on how public and private law principles need to be interpreted relative to each other and continue to be shaped continuously as an extension of their shared history. It is in this sense that we can examine the need for equity in the international sphere, which will be demonstrated concretely for three distinct areas where proportionality predominates: the law of war, the law of maritime delimitation and international human rights law.

Developments in Maritime Delimitation Law over the Last Decade: Emerging Principles in Modern Case Law

AbstractThe delimitation of maritime boundaries is a complex and multifaceted process with legal and technical aspects. The process involves the determination of a maritime boundary in a situation where two or more states are confronted with overlapping titles. In the absence of any precise rules in treaty law and established customary rules based on state practice, it has been left to the jurisprudence of international courts and tribunals to develop the applicable law of maritime boundary delimitation. This article provides a detailed examination of the complex and multifaceted processes involved in maritime delimitation law. In doing so, it highlights recent developments in the field, with an emphasis on the emerging principles of “non-cut-off” and “non-distortion.” The article also analyzes the crystalizing rules on delimitation beyond 200 nautical miles and questions the applicability of these rules to the ongoing maritime boundary dispute between Canada and the United States in the Beaufort Sea.

Consistency and Predictability in International Tribunals Decision on Maritime Delimitation Cases From 2009 to 2019

The rules of maritime delimitation are of paramount importance in the law of the sea because coastal states will not be able to effectively exercise their legal uses of the sea without definite boundary. However, as customary law, Articles 15, 74 and 83 of UNCLOS did not provide much guidance in any particular delimitation case. Meanwhile, concluded bilateral agreements had not created enough practice of law to qualify as customary law. Thus, it is left to the international tribunals to form the delimitation rules. However, cases decided by the international tribunals show a lack of consistency in applying two main methods based on relevant provisions of UNCLOS. Both equidistance and the equitable principle has been used on plenty of occasions, as well as other criteria. This study aims to examine whether the approach of international tribunals to maritime delimitation cases has become more predictable and consistent during 2009-2019. Limited to the cases decided by the ICJ, ITLOS, and PCA, the study found that there is no significant deviation from the application of Article 15 UNCLOS within the proceedings of the cases. However, the unpredictability of the decision in the Ghana/Cote d’Ivoire case shows that the Court is more focus on the consistency of methodology than principle matter. In applying Article 74 and 83 UNCLOS, the Tribunals also put more effort into ensuring a consistent methodology. However, plenty of discretion also available for the Tribunals. Although such discretion is crucial, it needs to utilise carefully to maintain the consistency and predictability of the law. Without the consistent interpretation and predictable translation of UNCLOS from the International Tribunals, it is impossible to preserve the Law of Maritime Delimitation.

The Timor Sea Conciliation under Article 298 and Annex V of UNCLOS: A Critique

Abstract This paper studies the first compulsory conciliation proceeding under Article 298 and Annex V of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. It assesses the competence and conciliation proceedings in a comprehensive manner, with a view to understanding how conciliation may contribute to settling maritime boundary disputes. This paper reviews the conciliation commission’s interpretation of Article 281, Article 298(1)(a)(i) and other relevant provisions of Annex V to UNCLOS, and discusses the question of whether a pre-existing treaty between the parties can preclude resort to compulsory conciliation under Article 298(1)(a)(i), a question largely left unanswered by the commission. Furthermore, this paper examines the conciliation proceedings and the outcomes in the light of the law of maritime delimitation.

Moving Maritime Boundaries: Changes in Coastal Land Sovereignty, River Courses, Sea Levels, and Maritime Delimitation Law

In February 2009, the International Court of Justice rendered a judgment delimiting a maritime area of the Black Sea between Romania and Ukraine. The very next month, Indonesia and Singapore concluded a treaty delimiting their maritime boundary in the western part of the Strait of Singapore. Although these two delimitations occurred by different means (adjudication and negotiation), years later, they raise the same question: can a subsequent event move a maritime boundary? As a matter of lex lata, the answer is probably “no”. As a matter of lex ferenda, however, this Article questions whether the law governing land boundaries should also apply to maritime boundaries in light of key differences between land and maritime boundaries.

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.

A Commentary on Maritime Boundary Arbitration between Bangladesh and India Concerning the Bay of Bengal

AbstractThis article considers the law of maritime delimitation as applied by the Arbitral Tribunal in the 2014 Bangladesh v. India case. The dispute concerned the delimitation of the maritime boundary between the two states in the north-eastern part of the Bay of Bengal. The Tribunal's Award covers several important issues which require careful examination, such as the land boundary terminus, the delimitation methodology, the role of objectivity, predictability and transparency in maritime delimitation, and the impact of the established case law on the present delimitation procedures. The commentary analyses the Award from the viewpoint of the law of maritime delimitation and traces how the Tribunal applied and developed the methodology used in maritime delimitation. The key points where the Award advances the law of the sea concern the concavity of the coast as a relevant circumstance and the creation of grey area. The Tribunal made significant pronouncements on the continental shelf, especially, beyond 200 nm. It confirmed the concept of a single continental shelf and reasoned that legal regimes of the EEZ and the continental shelf are independent and separable. However, the creation of another grey area met with strong disagreement from Dr Rao. The author considers the Award and the Dissenting Opinion to argue that the adjustment of the equidistance line raises certain concerns and that the creation of grey area is permissible under UNCLOS.

The International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea on Maritime Delimitation: The Bangladesh v. Myanmar Case

This article considers the law of maritime delimitation as applied by the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea in the 2012 Bangladesh v. Myanmar case. The dispute concerned the delimitation of the maritime boundary between the two states in the northern part of the Bay of Bengal. The decision demands a particular examination since it was the first delimitation dispute decided by the Tribunal. The article traces how the ITLOS applied and developed the methodology of maritime delimitation. It also analyzes the ascertainment of a true nature of international instruments as well as unilateral acts of states before international courts and tribunals.

Reflections on the Territorial and Maritime Dispute between Nicaragua and Colombia before the International Court of Justice

AbstractOn 19 November 2012, the International Court of Justice gave its judgment concerning the Territorial and Maritime Dispute between Nicaragua and Colombia. This judgment includes several important issues which need serious consideration, such the as legal status of maritime features, the interpretation and application of Article 121 of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, the methodology of maritime delimitations, the role of proportionality in maritime delimitations, and the impact of the judgment upon third states and effect of Article 59 of the ICJ Statute. Focusing on these issues, this contribution aims to analyse the judgment of 2012 from a viewpoint of the international law of the sea, in particular, the law of maritime delimitation.

Towards a More Constructive Analysis of the Identity of Special Regimes in International Law: the Case of Proportionality

This article inquires into the defining features of special regimes in international law. It starts from the assumption that a special regime, rather than simply a collection of rules and principles, is a variety of language. If international legal scholars wish to come to grips with the identity of special regimes in international law, as the author suggests, they should be less concerned with phenomena such as the resolution of normative conflicts and the systemic interpretation of treaties. Instead, they should study carefully the effect on the communication of legal propositions of transferring a piece of language from one particular part of international legal discourse to another. The argument proceeds in three steps. First, as the author argues, proportionality is a term that may be used to express many different meanings. Because of this, utterers may wish to bolster proportionality propositions in language tailored specifically to support an understanding of their intended meanings. Second, the author provides examples of the usage by international lawyers of the term proportionality in discussions of three different areas of regulation, namely state responsibility law, the law of maritime delimitation, and the law of the European Convention on the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. As the examples go to show, the supporting language used by utterers in communicating proportionality propositions varies greatly with the particular law discussed. Third, the author explains how such differences help in clarifying the different defining features of different areas of regulation.

El papel de la Corte Internacional de Justicia y otros tribunales en el desarrollo del derecho de la delimitación marítima

This paper analyzes, considering some specific cases, the development of maritime delimitation law in which the International Court of Justice and other courts have played a major role, contributing to the consolidation of this legal process. In the first place, reference is made to the concepts of equity and equidistance, establishing that although the rules are uncertain, the process has meant that equity has begun to generate general norms. With respect to the legal title, we maintain that as the problem of its base has been clarified, distance has become its main expression. What has not yet been sufficiently clarified are the principles and criteria of maritime delimitation; However, there has been progress that has been influenced by the development of International Law.

Maritime Delimitation in the Jurisprudence of the International Court of Justice

Primarily using Qatar v. Bahrain as an illustration, this Wang Tieya Lecture provides an overview and analysis of the case law of the International Court of Justice on maritime delimitation. The issues covered include: maritime zones recognized under UNCLOS, the development of the law of maritime delimitation, identification of relevant coasts and baselines, pre-existing agreement, delimitation of the territorial sea, delimitation of the continental shelf and the EEZ, and the starting point and end point of delimitation.

REFLECTIONS ON MARITIME DELIMITATION IN THE ROMANIA/UKRAINE CASE BEFORE THE INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE

Without rules on maritime delimitation in marine spaces where the jurisdiction of coastal states overlaps, the legal uses of these spaces cannot be enjoyed effectively. In this sense, the international law of maritime delimitation is of central importance. There is no doubt that international courts and tribunals play an important role in developing the international law of maritime delimitation. Hence it is important to analyze the development of case law in this field. This article examines the maritime delimitation between Romania and Ukraine in the Black Sea before the International Court of Justice. After reviewing the delimitation process in the Romania/Ukraine case, this article will address three principal issues: methodology of maritime delimitations, baseline issues and questions concerning the disproportionality test.

Contribution of the International Court of Justice to the development of the international law of the sea

Ladies and Gentlemen, It is a great pleasure and honour for me to speak at the Rhodes Academy of Oceans Law and Policy, an important forum for scientific communication in the area of the law of the sea, dedicated to fostering a more comprehensive understanding of the modern law of the sea and promoting adherence to the rule of law in the world’s oceans. Due to its high-level lectures by the most distinguished jurists and practitioners in the field of oceans law, the Rhodes Academy has become a key point of reference for specialized studies in the law of the sea, attracting wellqualified participants from all over the world. I would like to give you a presentation on the contribution of the International Court of Justice to the development of the law of the sea—it is not intended to be an exhaustive overview of the Court’s jurisprudence but rather a tour d’horizon of the most important decisions related to law of the sea issues. The Court’s jurisprudence has undoubtedly played a crucial role in the process of codification and progressive development of certain fundamental rules and principles of the law of the sea, which are today mainly embodied in the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, providing a comprehensive legal regime for the use of the world’s largest resource. It is especially the modern law of maritime delimitation which has been forged almost entirely through a series of legal decisions, emanating not only from the ICJ but also from a number of arbitral tribunals—beginning with the North Sea Continental Shelf cases that were decisive for the subsequent evolution of the continental shelf regime in international law.

REFLECTIONS ON MARITIME DELIMITATION IN THECAMEROON/NIGERIACASE

International courts and tribunals have played a predominant role in the development of the law of maritime delimitation.1In fact, since theNorth Sea Continental Shelfcases of 1969, eleven judgments concerning maritime delimitations were given by international courts and tribunals. Owing to the richness of international decisions, one may currently speak of ‘case law’ in the field of maritime delimitations. Thus it is indispensable to consider the evolving process of the law of maritime delimitation on the basis of the practice of international courts and tribunals.

Reflections on the Concept of Proportionality in the Law of Maritime Delimitation

Reflections on the Concept of Proportionality in the Law of Maritime Delimitation

Reflections on the Concept of Proportionality in the Law of Maritime Delimitation

AbstractThe concept of proportionality is one of the important relevant circumstances in maritime delimitation. In the case law relating to maritime delimitations, the role of proportionality has been enlarged geographically as well as functionally by international courts and tribunals. However, such an enlarged role of proportionality is not free from problems. Thus, this paper purports to examine the concept of proportionality in maritime delimitation from a critical viewpoint by analysing relevant judgments and state practice.

The Law and Politics of the Maritime Boundary Delimitations of the Russian Federation: Part 1

AbstractThe maritime zones of Russian Federation overlap with those of 12 neighbouring states. The practice of the Russian Federation concerning the delimitation of the boundaries of these zones provides an interesting opportunity to analyse the role of international law in the policy of a state in this respect, especially because bilateral negotiations of the Russian Federation have raised complex issues of law and fact. The analysis suggests that international law may influence the policy of a state regarding the delimitation of its maritime zones in different, albeit limited, ways. The role of international law in bilateral negotiations supports the conclusions the case law has reached on the significance of bilateral delimitation treaties for the formation of customary international law. This first part of the article provides an outline of the contents of maritime delimitation law, and analyses general aspects of the Russian Federation's practice concerning the boundaries of its maritime zones and the delimitations with Estonia, Finland, Georgia, Japan, Lithuania, North Korea, Poland, Romania, Sweden, Turkey and Ukraine.

The Contribution of West African States to the Legal Development of Maritime Delimitation Law

One of the objectives of the 1982 Convention on law of the sea (LOSC) is that the Convention will bring about an equitable and efficient utilisation of the marine resources. The Preambule states, inter alia, that special notice should be taken of legitimate Third World aspirations. In order to promote their socio-economic development many developing countries -among them various West-African states have directed their attention to the introduction of a resource related maritime zone regime since the 1970's. Several countries made proposals about an ‘Exclusive Economic Zone’. Many states were able to harmonize their position on essential elements of the regime which contributed to the rapid acceptance of the EEZ-concept in international law. The right to explore, exploit, conserve and manage all natural resources in an area not exceeding 200 nautical miles was acknowleged in Articles 56,1 and 57 of the LOSC. The wide support enjoyed by the EEZ concept did not occur in relation to maritime delimitation. Diametrically opposed views were held by the so-called pro-equidistance and pro-equity groups. Delimiatation conflicts between several African states could only be solved with the help of international arbitral tribunals. In order to reach an ‘equitable’ delimitation solution several factors were found to be of importance; a novum was the factor described as ‘the exercise of the right to development’.

BOOK REVIEWSBOOK REVIEWSKwiatkowskaBarbaraDrAssociate Director, Netherlands Institute for the Law of the Sea051990371119124WeilP., The Law of Maritime Delimitation – Reflections, Grotius Publications Ltd., Cambridge 1989, 327 pp. + Index, $ 98/£55.Copyright © T.M.C. Asser Press 19901990T.M.C. Asser PresspdfS0165070X00002849a.pdfdispartBook Reviews1.The book is a translation by MacGlashanMaureenMs, the Assistant Director of the Research Centre for International Law at the University of Cambridge, of

BOOK REVIEWSBOOK REVIEWSKwiatkowskaBarbaraDrAssociate Director, Netherlands Institute for the Law of the Sea051990371119124WeilP., The Law of Maritime Delimitation – Reflections, Grotius Publications Ltd., Cambridge 1989, 327 pp. + Index, $ 98/£55.Copyright © T.M.C. Asser Press 19901990T.M.C. Asser PresspdfS0165070X00002849a.pdfdispartBook Reviews1.The book is a translation by MacGlashanMaureenMs, the Assistant Director of the Research Centre for International Law at the University of Cambridge, of