Reflections on the Principle of Non-Cut Off: A Growing Concept in Maritime Boundary Delimitation Law

The application of the principle of non-cut off is a significant tool in maritime delimitation to provide an equitable solution. Unfortunately, scholars and experts have paid scant attention to this principle of maritime delimitation. This article analyzes the growing role of the principle of non-cut off in the law of maritime boundary delimitation and examines the related jurisprudence on the issue.     

A Note on Maritime Delimitation in a Multizonal Context: The Case of the Mediterranean

This article points out some of the issues that may arise during the delimitation of maritime boundary in a sea area where coastal states have proclaimed various maritime zones. Issues considered include delimitation in the presence of overlapping or coincident zones, the role of existing boundaries, use of all-purpose maritime boundaries, and the delimitation of future zones. Special reference is made to the Mediterranean Sea where coastal states have advanced various claims consisting of zones sometimes different from the ones provided for in the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea.     

Defining Seaward Boundaries in a Domestic Context: Norway and the Svalbard Archipelago

Abstract

This article analyzes a little-noticed aspect of the international legal controversy pertaining to Svalbard’s maritime zones. It concerns where and by which method Norway should draw the boundaries between Svalbard’s continental shelf and the 200-mile zone, on the one hand, and other maritime zones subject to Norwegian jurisdiction, on the other. The assumption upon which the discussion rests is that the Spitsbergen Treaty signatories enjoy treaty rights in the maritime zones beyond Svalbard’s territorial waters. The law of the sea does not contain rules on the drawing of maritime boundaries between different parts of a state’s territory, but the rules on delimitation between states offer a strong analogy. In the search for an equitable solution, primacy should be given to geographical factors. The article argues that Norway could do more to enhance the openness regarding the Svalbard delimitation question since its outcome will be of significant interest to other states.     

The 1985 guinea/guinea‐bissau maritime boundary case and its implications

The 1985 Guinea/Guinea‐Bissau maritime boundary case was a landmark decision in maritime delimitation. For the first time, sub‐Saharan African states resorted to third‐party settlement, thereby making a significant contribution to the developing state practice on maritime delimitation. The Arbitration Tribunal took an unprecedented “regional approach,”; which had a direct effect on the two neighboring countries, Senegal and Sierra Leone. The Award provides lessons for unresolved conflicts and has implications for areas of future dispute such as in the Gulf of Guinea, where Cameroon has initiated proceedings against Nigeria.     

Maritime Delimitation in the Arctic: The Barents Sea Treaty

During a visit to Norway by the Russian president in the spring of 2010, the president and the Norwegian prime minister surprisingly announced agreement on a delimitation line in the Barents Sea ending almost 40 years of negotiations. The agreement was signed in Murmansk on 15 September 2010. This article presents the background of the dispute and undertakes an assessment of the agreement and its implications for the Barents Sea, Svalbard, and other Arctic maritime delimitations.     

The Delimitation Method for the Continental Shelf Beyond 200 Nautical Miles: A Reflection on the Judicial and Arbitral Decisions

Abstract

This article examines the practice of the international judicial and arbitral tribunals thus far in delimiting the continental shelf beyond 200?nm, and indicates the trend reflected in the decisions. However, the article disagrees with the critical observation of the tribunals that the delimitation method for the continental shelf beyond 200?nm should follow that within 200?nm. The delimitation of the continental shelf beyond 200?nm is essentially different from the single maritime delimitation within 200?nm, and various methods may be employed in order to achieve an equitable result in a particular case.     

The Dispute Concerning the Delimitation of the Maritime Boundary Between Ghana and Côte d’Ivoire: Implications for the Law of the Sea

The final judgment in the maritime boundary delimitation case between Ghana and Côte d’Ivoire was delivered by an ad hoc special chamber (the Chamber) of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS) on 23 September 2017. The decision addressed important legal questions relating not only to maritime boundary delimitation but also to the balancing of various rights and interests at the provisional measures stage and international responsibility for unilateral resource exploitation activities in disputed zones pending delimitation. This article analyzes the decision of the Chamber with respect to its findings on tacit boundary agreements, delimitation methodology, and international responsibility.     

Legal Aspects of the Russian–Norwegian Model for Cross-Border Unitization in the Barents Sea and Arctic Ocean

This article examines the provisions in the 2010 Russian–Norwegian Treaty on Maritime Delimitation and Cooperation in the Barents Sea and the Arctic Ocean dealing with the management of transboundary hydrocarbon resources. How compatible is the unitization mechanism in the Treaty with Russian and Norwegian legislation? Will there be tension between Russian and Norwegian interpretations? How does Russian and Norwegian legislation support or challenge the concept of a “unit operator” in a cross-border unitization? What are the possible concerns and pitfalls related to mechanisms for consultations and procedures for dispute resolution?     

Law of the Sea Issues Between the United States and East Asian States

The United States is the sole superpower in the contemporary world and its role in the development of the law of the sea cannot be ignored. Although having not yet acceded to the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea, the United States has contributed to the development of the international law of the sea in numerous ways, including responding to the so-called excessive maritime claims in East Asia and creating new rules of maritime enforcement. This article assesses this recent U.S. practice.     

The Issue of Jurisdiction Over Mixed Disputes in the Chagos Marine Protection Area Arbitration and Beyond

The real issue in the Chagos Marine Protection Area Arbitration should have been the dispute concerning the Lancaster House Undertakings, over which the Arbitral Tribunal had no jurisdiction. The UNCLOS has no express provision respecting the jurisdiction over mixed disputes—disputes involving territorial sovereignty and maritime boundary delimitation. Thus, a court or tribunal facing a mixed dispute should refrain from exercising its jurisdiction over the maritime issue if its resolution is premised on the resolution of the sovereignty issue involved.     

Regulating Shipping in the Arctic Ocean: An Analysis of State Practice

The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (LOSC) permits state parties to establish an Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) 200 nautical miles from their coast. Coastal states have exclusive jurisdiction over resources within the EEZ, but navigational and other high seas freedoms continue to exist. A significant number of states have, however, enacted legislation that departs from the LOSC, interfering with the navigational rights and freedoms of other states. This article analzses this development with a specific focus on the Arctic. It investigates the powers of Arctic coastal states to regulate shipping in the EEZ and thereby navigation in the Arctic Ocean. It adds to the existing literature by providing an analysis of state practice, suggesting that despite uncertainty concerning the interpretation of the LOSC Article 234 and the right to exercise legislative jurisdiction over ice-covered waters, a not insignificant number of states have claimed jurisdiction in their own EEZ beyond the rights granted in the LOSC, and are therefore not in a position to object to extensive jurisdictional claims in the Arctic.     

Some problems concerning the delimitation of the maritime boundary between the republic of china (Taiwan) and the Philippines

Abstract

This paper analyzes the issue of how the relevant provisions of the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea can be applied to the delimitation of the maritime boundary in the Bashi Channel between Taiwan and the Philippine island of Luzon and in the South China Sea area. It concludes that the Philippines’ extensive territorial sea claim based on the 1898 U.S.‐Spanish Peace Treaty can hardly find any basis in customary rules of international law and the U.N. Convention and, therefore, should be disregarded in such delimitation. On the other hand, the archipelagic principle provided in the Convention can be applied here. With respect to rules of delimitation, it suggests that the equitable principle of the delimitation of the continental shelf, enunciated in the Anglo‐French Continental Shelf Arbitration (1977) and the Tunisian‐Libyan Continental Shelf Case (1982), can mutatis mutandis be applied to the delimitation of the maritime boundary. As an interim solution, the maritime boundary of certain disputed islands in the South China Sea should be declared neutral zones open to nationals of both countries.     

The technical delimitation of a modern equidistant boundary

Abstract

Delimitation of maritime boundaries represents a recent state activity. The main impetus stems from the 1958 Geneva Conventions on the Territorial Sea … and on the Continental Shelf. State practice since 1958 has shown a marked preference for the equidistance principle for maritime boundary delimitation. At first many of these limits were geometrically constructed on existing nautical charts or on specifically designed small‐to medium‐scale maps. With increasing ability to exploit marine resources and the associated need to delimit boundaries farther from the baseline, inequities have developed as a consequence of map projections utilized, differences in horizontal and vertical datums, and so on. This paper discusses the principles behind, and the development of, conventional techniques of equidistant boundary delimitation; illustrates the errors that may result; and points out means, through modern computer technology, to compute equitable, equidistant maritime boundaries at great distances from the baselines.     

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.     

The Sino-Vietnamese Agreement on Maritime Boundary Delimitation in the Gulf of Tonkin

This article addresses the recently ratified Sino-Vietnamese Boundary Delimitation Agreement in the Gulf of Tonkin and its implications for bilateral cooperation and development of friendly and neighboring relations between China and Vietnam. As the first maritime boundary line for China, the delimitation in the Gulf of Tonkin is indicative of China's positive attitude towards the resolution of other maritime issues with Vietnam and other neighboring countries.     

Historic Rights in International Law and in China's Practice

Despite the great expansion of maritime zones of the coastal states, consequent to the 1982 UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, state practice indicates continued attempts at using concepts of historic waters and/or historic rights to assert jurisdiction. The Chinese claim to historic rights in its 1998 Law on the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf is a new addition to the whole picture. It is the People's Republic of China's clear intention that the historic claim applies to the water areas in the South China Sea wherever China could not establish its 200-nm exclusive economic zone. This article assesses China's historic claim in the context of international law, state practice, and judicial pronouncements.     

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.     

Control of marine pollution: An essay review

The recently concluded agreement between Estonia and Sweden concerning the delimitation of their maritime zones in the Baltic Sea, the latest in the Baltic Sea region, raises interesting questions with respect to the continuity and/or succession of States. This is the first agreement concluded since the dissolution of the former Soviet Union in late 1991 that is totally governed by this intricate area of international law. The present article, starting from the opposite theoretical opinion both countries had on this issue, tries to illustrate how the idea of continuity has been mitigated in order to arrive at a practical solution between the parties.     

Submarine Telecommunication Cables in Disputed Maritime Areas

There are a considerable number of maritime areas where no boundary exists, or where a boundary is delimited only in part. This article deals with the issue of submarine telecommunication cables, which are sometimes placed on the seabed or buried in the subsoil of areas that are claimed by multiple states, and identifies specific issues that arise in the context of areas of overlapping claims.