The Torres Strait Treaty: Ocean Boundary Delimitation by Agreement

1982 ◽  
Vol 76 (2) ◽  
pp. 321-349 ◽  
Author(s):  
H. Burmester
Keyword(s):  
Continental Shelf ◽  
Aegean Sea ◽  
The United States ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Boundary Problems ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
Maritime Boundary ◽  
Slow Progress ◽  
Economic Zones

The delimitation of maritime boundaries is one of the major areas of ocean law where disputes between countries occur with frequency and where the development of governing principles of law remains difficult. At the Law of the Sea Conference, delimitation of the continental shelf and economic zones between states with opposite or adjacent coasts was one of the last issues to be resolved. Major judicial and arbitral decisions, such as the North Sea Continental Shelf cases before the International Court of Justice and the Anglo-French Continental Shelf arbitration, have gone some way to developing a body of relevant law to assist states in the solution of their maritime boundary problems. These decisions have clarified some of the relevant factors that states should take into account, but major boundary problems remain. On the Aegean Sea, Greece and Turkey have still not reached any solution; relations between Canada and the United States have been severely strained by their slow progress on maritime boundary issues; Libya and Tunisia have referred their continental shelf dispute to the International Court of Justice.

Equitable Delimitation of Continental Shelf

1979 ◽  
Vol 73 (1) ◽  
pp. 60-88 ◽  
Author(s):  
M. D. Blecher
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Continental Shelf ◽  
Geneva Convention ◽  
The United States ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
Rules And Principles ◽  
Made In

The fons et origo of much law concerning the continental shelf, the Truman Proclamation of September 28, 1945, declared that in cases where the continental shelf off the coast of the United States extended to the shores of another state or was shared with an adjacent state, the boundary should be determined by the United States and the state concerned “in accordance with equitable principles.” A number of subsequent declarations, such as those of Saudi Arabia and the various coastal sheikhdoms on the Arabian Peninsula, have contained similar statements. In the North Sea Continental Shelf case the International Court of Justice, having found the delimitation provisions of the 1958 Geneva Convention on the Continental Shelf to be inapplicable as between the parties, began its exposition of the basic rules and principles to be applied as follows: “(1) delimitation is to be effected by agreement in accordance with equitable principles.” Although the 1958 Geneva Convention did not explicitly require delimitation to be made in accordance with equitable principles, it has been interpreted as requiring such delimitations. Article 83, paragraph 1 of the Informal Composite Negotiating Text of the Third United Nations Law of the Sea Conference expressly states that the delimitation of the continental shelf between adjacent or opposite states shall be effected by agreement in accordance with equitable principles. Whether or not Article 83, paragraph 1 is eventually accepted, it would seem that notions of equity are likely to continue to play an important part in the determination of continental shelf boundaries.

Some Perspectives on Adjudicating Before the World Court: The Gulf of Maine Case

1985 ◽  
Vol 79 (3) ◽  
pp. 578-597 ◽  
Author(s):  
Davis R. Robinson ◽  
David A. Colson ◽  
Bruce C. Rashkow
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
East Coast ◽  
Gulf Of Maine ◽  
The United States ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Continental Shelves ◽  
International Court ◽  
Maritime Boundary ◽  
The World

On October 12, 1984, a five-member Chamber of the International Court of Justice rendered its decision in the maritime boundary dispute between the United States and Canada in the Gulf of Maine area. The Chamber delimited the continental shelves and 200-nautical-mile fisheries zones by setting one line between the two countries off the East Coast of North America. The Chamber’s Judgment, which under Article 27 of the Statute of the Court is considered as if it were rendered by the full 15-member Court, is likely to attract considerable comment. We will resist the temptation to add our views to that substantive commentary, leaving analysis for the time being to others not so closely associated with the case.

The Dispute between Greece and Turkey Concerning the Continental Shelf in the Aegean

1977 ◽  
Vol 71 (1) ◽  
pp. 31-59 ◽  
Author(s):  
Leo Gros
Keyword(s):  
Continental Shelf ◽  
Aegean Sea ◽  
Legal Rights ◽  
International Peace ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Dangerous Situation ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
Interim Measures ◽  
Of Greece

On August 10, 1976, Greece addressed a communication to the President of the Security Council requesting an urgent meeting of the Council on the ground that “following recent repeated flagrant violations by Turkey of the sovereign rights of Greece in the continental shelf in the Aegean, a dangerous situation has been created threatening international peace and security.” On the same day, by unilateral application, Greece instituted proceedings in the International Court of Justice against Turkey in “a dispute concerning the delimitation of the continental shelf appertaining to Greece and Turkey in the Aegean Sea, and concerning the respective legal rights of those States to explore and exploit the continental shelf of the Aegean.” Also on the same day Greece filed a request for interim measures of protection asking the Court to direct that both Greece and Turkey

Adjudication of the Maritime Boundary in the Gulf of Maine

1980 ◽  
Vol 17 ◽  
pp. 292-303 ◽  
Author(s):  
D.M. McRae
Keyword(s):  
North Atlantic ◽  
Ad Hoc ◽  
Gulf Of Maine ◽  
Atlantic Coast ◽  
The United States ◽  
Third Party ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
Maritime Boundary

On March 29, 1979 Canada and the United States signed a treaty to submit their dispute over the maritime boundary in the Gulf of Maine to binding settlement. The event is worthy of note not only because it is the first occasion since the North Atlantic Coast Fisheries Arbitration, in 1910, that the two countries have submitted a dispute over their offshore jurisdiction to third party settlement but also because it constitutes the first reference by any state of a question to a chamber of the International Court of Justice. However, this reference to the Court is only conditional and the parties have provided for the possible removal of the case from the Court and for its submission to an ad hoc court of arbitration. Thus, as well as providing a further opportunity for an international tribunal to consider the law relating to the delimitation of maritime boundaries, the treaty raises some interesting questions about recourse to a chamber of the International Court of Justice.

From Sea to Seabed: The Single Maritime Boundary in the Gulf of Maine Case

1985 ◽  
Vol 79 (4) ◽  
pp. 961-991 ◽  
Author(s):  
L. H. Legault ◽  
Blair Hankey
Keyword(s):  
Continental Shelf ◽  
Ad Hoc ◽  
Gulf Of Maine ◽  
The Body ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
Maritime Boundary ◽  
The One ◽  
Judicial Determinations

Three decisions on maritime boundaries in a period of 9 months during 1984-1985 have doubled the body of case law on the delimitation of ocean space. The cases decided by international tribunals prior to 1984 applied only to the continental shelf. The waters overlying the shelf were either part of the high seas or, if subject to coastal state jurisdiction, were left undivided as between neighboring coastal states. However, two of the decisions rendered last year—the decision by a Chamber of the International Court of Justice in the Gulf of Maine case and the one by an ad hoc arbitral tribunal in the Guinea/Guinea-Bissau case—constituted the first judicial determinations of boundaries that divide jurisdiction over both the continental shelf and the water column beyond the territorial sea. The decision by the International Court of Justice in the Libya/Malta Continental Shelf case represented the fourth in a line of cases delimiting the continental shelf alone.

scholarly journals THE ROLE OF INTERNATIONAL LAW AND UN INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE IN RESOLVING AEGEAN DISPUTE

2021 ◽  
pp. 132-138
Author(s):  
E. R. Akhmedova
Keyword(s):  
Continental Shelf ◽  
International Law ◽  
Aegean Sea ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Interstate Relations ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
International Boundary ◽  
Maritime Disputes

 The articles states that the delimitation of the continental shelf in the Aegean has been the main contentious issue between Greece and Turkey for the past 50 years. It has been unsuccessfully brought before the International Court of Justice, has been repeatedly discussed in the Security Council and has given rise to at least one delimitation agreement. The key problem is Greece would like to resolve the Aegean Sea dispute by the International Court of Justice but if Turkey accepts Greek offer, which is to refer the Aegean Sea dispute before the International Court of Justice, it may not only impair the Turkish sovereignty over her territorial sea and continental shelf but also endanger the Turkish mainland security because of the Greek re-militarized operations. The purpose of this article is to study the practice of resolving maritime disputes by the international judicial bodies. Turkey is one of the 16 countries which have not signed or ratified the Convention on the Law of the Sea. International law offers various means which Greece and Turkey can employ in order to deal with the Aegean Sea dispute. The parties can establish an international boundary via delimitation, agree on a moratorium of petroleum operations or enter into a Joint Development Agreement. However, reality often imposes obstacles which law cannot surmount. All options require good faith and a mutual spirit of compromise between the concerned parties. Without an agreement, unilateral acts or claims have no legal value. The International Court of Justice has settled a number of maritime disputes in the course of its work. Despite its decisions on some cases were made not in favor of the disputing parties the role of the UN International Court of Justice in resolving interstate disputes and maintaining international law and order is quite significant. The procedure in the UN International Court of Justice is quite effective and allows it to perform the tasks set by the world community based on international legal instruments governing interstate relations in the field of international maritime law.

Delimitation of the Continental Shelf between the United Kingdom and France: The Channel Arbitration

1978 ◽  
Vol 15 ◽  
pp. 173-197 ◽  
Author(s):  
D. M. McRae
Keyword(s):  
United Kingdom ◽  
Continental Shelf ◽  
Ad Hoc ◽  
The United States ◽  
The Body ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
Important Addition

The decision of the ad hoc court of arbitration on the delimitation of the continental shelf between the United Kingdom and France is undoubtedly the most important addition to the body of law relating to the delimitation of the continental shelf since the decision of the International Court of Justice in the North Sea Continental Shelf cases. The reasons for the decision will be of particular interest in Canada in view of unsettled boundaries with the United States on the east and west coasts and in the Beaufort Sea, and with France in respect of St. Pierre and Miquelon. The arbitration was a consequence of the inability of France and the United Kingdom to settle by negotiation their continental shelf boundary westward of 30 degrees west of Greenwich to the outer limit of the shelf. The principal difficulties were the effect to be given to the Channel Islands and the method for delimiting the area of shelf lying beyond the land of either country out into the Atlantic, the area denoted by the tribunal as the “Atlantic region.”

Territorial and Maritime Dispute

2013 ◽  
Vol 107 (2) ◽  
pp. 396-403 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nienke Grossman
Keyword(s):  
Caribbean Sea ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Base Points ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Continental Shelves ◽  
International Court ◽  
Maritime Boundary ◽  
Exclusive Economic Zones ◽  
The Caribbean ◽  
Economic Zones

On November 19, 2012, the International Court of Justice rendered its judgment in a dispute involving territorial and maritime claims raised by Nicaragua against Colombia in the Caribbean Sea. The Court considered Nicaragua’s requests for a declaration of Nicaraguan sovereignty over seven disputed maritime features and delimitation of a single maritime boundary between the continental shelves and exclusive economic zones appertaining to Nicaragua and Colombia. The Court awarded all disputed territory to Colombia and delimited the maritime boundary between the states’ continental shelves and exclusive economic zones by using a novel mix of weighted base points, geodetic lines, parallels of latitude, and enclaving.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document