Abstract
The basic consideration in maritime delimitation under international law is the importance accorded to neutral, objective legal criteria to enable predictability, along with an appreciation of the specific circumstances of each case, to achieve an equitable solution. Especially since the first half of the 1990s, international judicial and arbitral practice on maritime dispute settlement has greatly contributed to the interpretation and consolidation of principles of international law and rules for maritime delimitation. Although several longstanding maritime delimitation disputes have recently been resolved, the overall trend has not been a decrease in the number of open and emerging maritime delimitation issues. Some new developments, embodying the demand for unique solutions to be employed in maritime delimitation, confront the trend toward the consolidation of international judicial and arbitral practice.
This contribution is dedicated to Professor and Judge Tullio Treves, who has made invaluable contributions towards the governance of international law in inter-state relations, not least in respect of the peaceful settlement of disputes in the field of the law of the sea.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
Guillaume 2007, p. 2.
- 2.
Entered into force on 16 November 1994. As of 13 January 2012, there were 162 parties to the LOS Convention.
- 3.
Treves 2011, paras 49 and 89.
- 4.
Johnston 1988, p. xiii.
- 5.
See Degan 2007, p. 609, referring to the judgment by the International Court of Justice in Maritime Delimitation in the Area between Greenland and Jan Mayen as an early example of this tendency in the judicial and arbitral practice of defining some simple and general rules that can lead to predictable results in their application (ICJ: Maritime Delimitation in the Area between Greenland and Jan Mayen (Denmark v. Norway), Judgment (14 June 1993)).
- 6.
Churchill 2007, p. 475.
- 7.
Since the end of the 1990s, this has notably related to judicial decisions and arbitral awards in the following cases: PCA Arbitral Tribunal: Eritrea/Yemen, Award in the Second Stage—Maritime Delimitation (17 December 1999); ICJ: Maritime Delimitation and Territorial Questions between Qatar and Bahrain (Qatar v. Bahrain), Judgment (16 March 2001); ICJ: Land and Maritime Boundary between Cameroon and Nigeria (Cameroon v. Nigeria: Equatorial Guinea intervening), Judgment (10 October 2002); PCA/UNCLOS Arbitral Tribunal: Delimitation of the EEZ and the Continental Shelf (Barbados/Trinidad and Tobago), Award (11 April 2006); PCA/UNCLOS Arbitral Tribunal: Guyana v. Suriname, Award (17 September 2007); ICJ: Territorial and Maritime Dispute between Nicaragua and Honduras in the Caribbean Sea (Nicaragua v. Honduras), Judgment (8 October 2007); ICJ: Maritime Delimitation in the Black Sea (Romania v. Ukraine), Judgment (3 February 2009).
- 8.
Delimitation between Qatar and Bahrain, supra n. 7, para 185.
- 9.
Maritime Delimitation in the Black Sea, supra n. 7, para 99. In the same judgment the Court further observed that the legal concept of the “relevant area” must be taken into account as part of the methodology of maritime delimitation, in which the “relevant area”, first, depending on the configuration of the relevant coasts, may include certain maritime spaces and exclude others not germane to the case in hand; and second, is pertinent to checking disproportionality (ibidem, para 110).
- 10.
Territorial and Maritime Dispute (Nicaragua v. Colombia), supra n. 7, para 269.
- 11.
Ibidem, para 268, referring to the Court’s 2001 Judgment on Delimitation between Qatar and Bahrain, supra n. 7, para 176.
- 12.
Delimitation between Qatar and Bahrain, supra n. 7, para 231.
- 13.
Territorial and Maritime Dispute (Nicaragua v. Colombia), supra n. 7, para 271, referring to Land and Maritime Boundary (Cameroon v. Nigeria), supra n. 7, para 288.
- 14.
Maritime delimitation in the Black Sea, supra n. 7, paras 110 and 111, referring to the following previous judgments: ICJ: North Sea Continental Shelf (Federal Republic of Germany/Denmark; Federal Republic of Germany/The Netherlands), Judgment (20 February 1969), para 18; Maritime Delimitation (Denmark v. Norway), supra n. 5, para 64.
- 15.
North Sea Continental Shelf, supra n. 14, para 91.
- 16.
Land and Maritime Boundary (Cameroon v. Nigeria), supra n. 7, para 295.
- 17.
Oceans and the Law of the Sea: Report of the Secretary-General, UN Doc. A/59/62 of 4 March 2004, para 41.
- 18.
ICJ: Continental Shelf (Libya/Malta), Judgment (3 June 1985), para 45.
- 19.
Delimitation (Barbados/Trinidad and Tobago), supra n. 7.
- 20.
- 21.
Delimitation (Barbados/Trinidad and Tobago), supra n. 7, paras 221 and 232.
- 22.
Ibidem, para 228.
- 23.
Ibidem, para 244.
- 24.
See Scovazzi 2006, especially paras 9, 12, 14 and 39.
- 25.
Guillaume 2011, pp. 11–12.
- 26.
Article 59 of the Statute reads: “The decision of the Court has no binding force except between the parties and in respect of that particular case.”
- 27.
Bundy 2006, p. 95.
- 28.
Guillaume 2011, p. 12.
- 29.
Ibidem, pp. 14–15.
- 30.
This aspect has proven its importance, beyond third-party decisions, also for the conclusion of bilateral agreements in the settlement of some long-standing maritime disputes between States, such as between Norway and Russia, where the appreciation of principles for maritime delimitation as consolidated through the ICJ judgments and arbitral awards played an important role in the successful conclusion of the Treaty between Norway and the Russian Federation concerning Maritime Delimitation and Cooperation in the Barents Sea and the Arctic Ocean (Murmansk, 15 September 2010), entered into force on 7 July 2011; for a review and the text of the treaty, see Jensen 2011.
- 31.
For an early argument in that direction, see Vukas 1999, pp. 102–103.
- 32.
Scovazzi 2006, para 3.
- 33.
See further the discussion in Oude Elferink and Rothwell 2001.
- 34.
- 35.
See the chapters in Part V, on “Continental Shelf Beyond 200 Nautical Miles”, in Vidas 2010, pp. 423–589.
- 36.
See further Papanicolopulu 2007.
- 37.
See further Vidas 2009.
References
Bundy RR (2006) Preparing for a delimitation case: the practitioner’s view. In: Lagoni R, Vignes D (eds) Maritime delimitation. Martinus Nijhoff, Leiden, pp 95–119
Churchill RR (2007) Dispute settlement under the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea: survey for 2006. Int J Marine Coast Law 22:463–483
Degan V-D (2007) Consolidation of legal principles on maritime delimitation: implications for the dispute between Slovenia and Croatia in the North Adriatic. Chin J Int Law 6:601–634
Guillaume G (2007) The Contribution of the Permanent Court of Arbitration and its International Bureau to Arbitration between States. www.pca-cpa.org/upload/files/Guillaume%20EN.pdf. Accessed 15 June 2012
Guillaume G (2011) The use of precedent by international judges and arbitrators. J Int Dispute Settl 2:5–23
Jensen Ø (2011) Treaty between Norway and the Russian Federation concerning maritime delimitation and cooperation in the Barents Sea and the Arctic Ocean. Int J Marine Coast Law 26:151–168
Johnston DM (1988) The theory and history of ocean boundary-making. McGill-Queen’s University Press, Kingston-Montreal
Kwiatkowska B (2007) The Barbados/Trinidad and Tobago Award: a landmark in compulsory jurisdiction and equitable maritime boundary delimitation. Int J Marine Coast Law 22:7–60
Oude Elferink AG, Rothwell DR (eds) (2001) The law of the sea and polar maritime delimitation and jurisdiction. Martinus Nijhoff, Leiden
Papanicolopulu I (2007) A note on maritime delimitation in a multizonal context: the case of the Mediterranean. Ocean Dev Int Law 38:381–398
Prescott V, Schofield C (2005) The maritime political boundaries of the World, 2nd edn. Martinus Nijhoff, Leiden
Scovazzi T (2006) Maritime delimitation cases before international courts and tribunals In: Wolfrum R (ed) Max Planck encyclopedia of Public International Law. Oxford University Press, Oxford. Available at www.mpepil.com
Smith RW (ed) (1990) Limits in the seas: maritime boundaries of the world. US Department of State, Washington, DC
Treves T (2011) Law of the Sea. In: Wolfrum R (ed) Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law. Oxford University Press, Oxford. Available at www.mpepil.com
Vidas D (2009) The UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, the European Union and the rule of law: what is going on in the Adriatic Sea? Int J Marine Coast Law 24:1–66
Vidas D (ed) (2010) Law, technology, and science for oceans in globalisation. Martinus Nijhoff, Leiden
Vukas B (1999) Possible role of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea in interpretation and progressive development of the law of the sea. In: Vidas D, Østreng W (eds) Order for the oceans at the turn of the century. Kluwer Law International, The Hague, pp 95–104
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2013 T.M.C. ASSER PRESS, The Hague, The Netherlands, and the authors
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Vidas, D. (2013). Consolidation or Deviation? On Trends and Challenges in the Settlement of Maritime Delimitation Disputes by International Courts and Tribunals. In: Boschiero, N., Scovazzi, T., Pitea, C., Ragni, C. (eds) International Courts and the Development of International Law. T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague, The Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-6704-894-1_26
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-6704-894-1_26
Published:
Publisher Name: T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague, The Netherlands
Print ISBN: 978-90-6704-893-4
Online ISBN: 978-90-6704-894-1
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawLaw and Criminology (R0)
