The Rejection of a Theoretical Beauty: The Foot of the Continental Slope in Maritime Boundary Delimitations Beyond 200 Nautical Miles

This article addresses maritime boundary delimitation concerning the continental shelf beyond 200 nautical miles. The focal point is how the foot of the continental slope can be used as the point of departure in drawing the provisional equidistance line in outer continental shelf boundary delimitations between neighboring states. The article examines the strength and weaknesses of this approach and asks whether the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea indirectly rejected this approach in the 2012 Bangladesh v. Myanmar Case.     

Crossed Lines: The Curious Case of the Beaufort Sea Maritime Boundary Dispute

The Beaufort Sea maritime boundary dispute has traditionally been understood as involving a wedge-shaped area of maritime space that extends to a distance of 200 nautical miles north of the terminus of the Canada-United States border between the Yukon Territory and Alaska. However, new data collected in pursuit of establishing the limits of the extended continental shelf in the region show that the two countries’ seabed resource rights may stretch far beyond the 200-nautical-mile limit of the exclusive economic zone. Significantly, at approximately 200 nautical miles from shore, the U.S.-claimed equidistance line crosses the line claimed by Canada, which follows the 141° W meridian, meaning that the legal positions of the two countries if simply extended beyond the EEZ would appear to favor the other party. This article explores how the United States and Canada might seek to reformulate their legal positions to resolve the dispute. Though these reformulated positions might not reduce the area in dispute, they will clarify it and potentially enable the parties to either delimit a single maritime boundary or choose to implement one of a number of creative solutions to the dispute that are outlined in the article.     

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

In 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.     

Sea power and the law of the sea: The need for a contextual approach

On May 25, 2005, Ireland lodged the first example of a so-called “partial submission” to the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf in respect of an allegedly “undisputed” area of seabed beyond 200 nm limits sandwiched between disputed and extensive seabed claims to the north (Hatton-Rockall Area) by Denmark/Faroes and Iceland, and an as yet undelimited seabed area to the south (the Celtic Shelf) where the United Kingdom, France, and Spain may also have seabed claims. This article considers the problems that may arise even from this supposedly uncontroversial type of submission in the light of the diplomatic reaction by both Denmark/Faroes and Iceland in August 2005.