Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-l7hp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T12:31:36.391Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

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

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 November 2020

YUNUS EMRE ACIKGONUL  and
EDWARD R. LUCAS
Get access

Abstract

The 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.

Résumé

Résumé

La délimitation des frontières maritimes est un processus complexe et multiforme comportant des aspects juridiques et techniques. Le processus implique la détermination d’une frontière maritime dans une situation où deux ou plusieurs États sont confrontés à des titres qui se chevauchent. En l’absence de règles conventionnelles précises et de règles coutumières établies fondées sur la pratique des États, c’est à la jurisprudence de cours et de tribunaux internationaux qu’il est revenu d’élaborer le droit applicable à la délimitation des frontières maritimes. Cet article fournit un examen détaillé des processus complexes et multiformes impliqués dans le droit de la délimitation maritime. Ce faisant, il met en évidence les développements récents dans le domaine, en mettant l’accent sur les principes émergents de “non-amputation” et de “non-distorsion.” L’article analyse également les règles cristallisantes de la délimitation au-delà des 200 milles marins et s’interroge sur l’applicabilité éventuelle de ces règles au différend entre le Canada et les États-Unis concernant leur frontière maritime dans la mer de Beaufort.

Keywords

Beaufort Seaequitable principlesextended continental shelflaw of the seamaritime boundary delimitationnatural prolongationnon-cut-offnon-distortionproportionalityDélimitation des frontières maritimesdroit de la mermer de Beaufortnon-amputationnon-distorsionplateau continental étenduprincipes équitablesprolongation naturelleproportionnalité
Type
Articles
Information
Canadian Yearbook of International Law/Annuaire canadien de droit international , Volume 57 , November 2020 , pp. 156 - 222
Copyright
© The Canadian Yearbook of International Law/Annuaire canadien de droit international 2020

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

The authors would like to thank the members of the United States Department of State and Global Affairs Canada for their helpful insights and perspectives and extend special gratitude to Professor Emeritus Armand de Mestral of McGill University for his valuable support and encouragement throughout.

References

1 Hoegh-Guldberg, Ove et al, Reviving the Ocean Economy: The Case for Action — 2015 (Gland, Switzerland: World Wildlife Fund International, 2015).Google Scholar

2 Elferink, Alex G Oude, Henriksen, Tore & Busch, Signe Veierud, Maritime Boundary Delimitation: The Case Law: Is It Consistent and Predictable? (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2018) at 1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

3 Crawford, James, Brownlie’s Principles of Public International Law, 9th ed (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2019) at 268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

4 Donaldson, John & Williams, Alison, “Understanding Maritime Jurisdictional Disputes: The East China Sea and Beyond” (2005) Journal of International Affairs 135 at 141.Google Scholar

5 Cottier, Thomas, Equitable Principles of Maritime Boundary Delimitation (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2015) at 4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

6 List of cases from the International Court of Justice (ICJ) is available online: <www.icj-cij.org/docket/index.php?p1=3&p2=2>.

7 Tanja, Gerard J, The Legal Determination of International Maritime Boundaries: The Progressive Development of Continental Shelf, EFZ and EEZ Law (Deventer, Netherlands: Kluwer Law and Taxation Publishers, 1990) at 19.Google Scholar

8 Maritime Delimitation in the Black Sea (Romania v Ukraine), Judgment, [2009] ICJ Rep 61 at para 77 [2009 Romania v Ukraine].

9 Grisbådarna Case (Norway v Sweden), Award, 23 October 1909, reprinted in (1910) 4:1 Am J Intl L 226 [1909 Grisbådarna].

10 Jagota, SP, Maritime Boundary, Publications on Ocean Development (Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff, 1985) at 49Google Scholar.

11 Convention on the Territorial Sea and Contiguous Zone, 29 April 1958, 516 UNTS 205 (entered into force 10 September 1964); Convention on Fishing and Conservation of the Living Resources of the High Seas, 29 April 1958, 559 UNTS 285 (entered into force 20 March 1966); Convention on the High Seas, 29 April 1958, 450 UNTS 11 (entered into force 30 September 1962); Convention on the Continental Shelf, 29 April 1958, 499 UNTS 311 (entered into force 10 June 1964).

12 Convention on the Continental Shelf, supra note 11, art 6.

13 Roach, J Ashley, “Today’s Customary International Law of the Sea” (2014) 45:3 Ocean Dev & Intl L 239 at 239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

14 North Sea Continental Shelf (Federal Republic of Germany v Denmark; Federal Republic of Germany v Netherlands), Judgment, [1969] ICJ Rep 3 at paras 69–81 [1969 North Sea].

15 Cottier, supra note 5 at 49.

16 Dundua, Nugzar, Delimitation of Maritime Boundaries between Adjacent States (New York: United Nations, Division for Oceans Affairs and the Law of the Sea, 2006) at 10.Google Scholar

17 Ibid at 11–13.

18 Stevenson, John R & Oxman, Bernard H, “The Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea: The 1974 Caracas Session” (1975) 69:1 Am J Intl L 1 at 17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

19 Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea, Revised Single Negotiating Text (Part II), UN Doc A/CONF.62/WP.8/REV1/PART II (1976) at 151, 164. Ambassador Amerasinghe initiated the Single Negotiating Text technique in 1975 to prevent a flood of many proposed treaty articles bogging down the delegates.

20 Tommy Koh was the president of the Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea between 1980 and 1982. United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, 10 December 1982, 1833 UNTS 3 (entered into force 16 November 1994) [UNCLOS].

21 Eiriksson, Gudmundur, “Satya N. Nandan’s Role in Drafting the Informal Single Negotiating Text: Aspects of the Preparatory Work for UNCLOS” in Peace Order World’s Oceans Essays Honor Satya N Nandan (Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff, 2014) 35 at 49Google Scholar; Scovazzi, Tullio, The Evolution of International Law of the Sea: New Issues, New Challenges (Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff, 2000) at 196.Google Scholar

22 Fietta, Stephen & Cleverly, Robin, Practitioner’s Guide to Maritime Boundary Delimitation (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2016)Google Scholar, preface. See also UNCLOS, supra note 20, arts 74, 83, respectively, on the delimitation of the exclusive economic zone (EEZ) and the continental shelf.

23 UNCLOS, supra note 20, arts 74(1), 83(1).

24 In the Matter of the Arbitration between Barbados and Trinidad and Tobago, Judgment, 11 April 2006, reprinted in 27 UNRIAA 147 at para 222 [2006 Barbados v Trinidad and Tobago].

25 Oude Elferink, Henriksen & Busch, supra note 2 at 3–4.

26 Delimitation of the Maritime Boundary between Bangladesh and Myanmar in the Bay of Bengal (Bangladesh v Myanmar), [2012] ITLOS Rep 4 at para 184 [2012 Bangladesh v Myanmar].

27 2006 Barbados v Trinidad and Tobago, supra note 24 at para 223.

28 Charney, Jonathan I, “Progress in International Maritime Boundary Delimitation Law” (1994) 88:2 Am J Intl L 227 at 228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

29 Fietta & Cleverly, supra note 22 at 27.

30 Oude Elferink, Henriksen & Busch, supra note 2 at 2–3.

31 Case Concerning the Continental Shelf (Tunisia v Libyan Arab Jamahiriya), Judgment, [1982] ICJ Rep 18 at para 133 [1982 Tunisia v Libya]. See also 1969 North Sea, supra note 14 at para 85.

32 Case Concerning the Continental Shelf (Libyan Arab Jamahiriya v Malta), Judgment, [1985] ICJ Rep 13 at para 93 [1985 Libya v Malta].

33 Arbitral Tribunal Constituted Pursuant to Article 287, and in Accordance with Annex VII, of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea in the Matter of an Arbitration between Guyana and Suriname, PCA Case no 2004-04 (2007) at para 335 [2007 Guyana v Suriname].

34 2009 Romania v Ukraine, supra note 8 at paras 102–03.

35 Land and Maritime Boundary between Cameroon and Nigeria (Cameroon v Nigeria: Equatorial Guinea intervening), Judgment, [2002] ICJ Rep 303 at para 288.

36 Case Concerning the Delimitation of Continental Shelf between the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and the French Republic, 30 June 1977, reprinted in 18 UNRIAA 3 at para 70 [1977 Anglo-French].

37 Seneadza, Oswald K, “The Law and Practice in Maritime Boundary Delimitation: Lessons for the Resolution of Dispute between Cote d’Ivoire and Ghana” (2011) 37:2 Common Law Bull 295 at 298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

38 Sharma, Om Parkash, The International Law of the Sea: India and the UN Convention of 1982 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009) at 194–95.Google Scholar

39 Delimitation of the Maritime Boundary in the Gulf of Maine Area (Canada v United States of America), Judgment, [1984] ICJ Rep 246 at para 112 [1984 Gulf of Maine].

40 UNCLOS, supra note 20, arts 74 and 83 mandate the achievement of an equitable solution. These provisions reflect the requirements of customary international law applicable to all states. Fietta & Cleverly, supra note 22 at 52. See also Maritime Delimitation in the Area between Greenland and Jan Mayen (Denmark v Norway), Judgment, [1993] ICJ Rep 38 at para 48 [1993 Jan Mayen]; Maritime Delimitation and Territorial Questions between Qatar and Bahrain (Qatar v Bahrain), Merits, [2001] ICJ Rep 40 at para 201 [2001 Qatar v Bahrain].

41 Kim, JH, “Natural Prolongation: A Living Myth in the Regime of the Continental Shelf?” (2014) 45 Ocean Dev & Intl L 374 CrossRefGoogle Scholar at 384; Acikgonul, Yunus Emre, “Equitable Delimitation of Maritime Boundaries: The Uncontested Supremacy of Coastal Geography in Case Law” (2017) 31:1 Ocean YB Online 171 at 181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

42 Cottier, supra note 5 at 8.

43 Tanaka, Yoshifumi, The International Law of the Sea (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2015) at 214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

44 2006 Barbados v Trinidad and Tobago, supra note 24 at para 230.

45 Policy of the United States with Respect to the Natural Resources of the Subsoil and Sea Bed of the Continental Shelf, Presidential Proclamation no 2667 (28 September 1945), 10 Fed Reg 12303.

46 Fietta & Cleverly, supra note 22 at 12.

47 Cottier, supra note 5 at 7.

48 1969 North Sea, supra note 14 at para 85. The ICJ found that Germany had not ratified the 1958 Convention on the Continental Shelf and that its provisions were not applicable in this case (at paras 25–28). The court further held that art 6 of the convention had not attained customary law status (at para 69).

49 1982 Tunisia v Libya, supra note 31 at para 133. In the special agreement, the parties asked the court to declare the principles and rules of international law that may be applied for the delimitation, taking into account equitable principles and relevant circumstances as well as the then “recent trends” recognized at the Third Conference on the Law of the Sea (at para 2).

50 2006 Barbados v Trinidad and Tobago, supra note 24 at para 229.

51 2012 Bangladesh v Myanmar, supra note 26 at para 235.

52 In the Matter of the Bay of Bengal Maritime Boundary (Bangladesh v India), PCA Case no 2010-16 (2014) at para 339 [emphasis added] [2014 Bangladesh v India].

53 Delimitation of the Maritime Boundary between Ghana and Côte d’Ivoire in the Atlantic Ocean (Ghana v Côte d’Ivoire), [2017] ITLOS Rep 4 at para 281 [2017 Ghana v Côte d’Ivoire].

54 Evans argues that the vague “equitable solution formula” found practical meaning and clarification in judicial decisions. See Evans, Malcolm D, “Maritime Boundary Delimitation: Whatever Next?” in Barrett, J & Barnes, R, eds, Law of the Sea: UNCLOS as a Living Treaty (London: British Institute of International and Comparative Law, 2016) 41 at 47.Google Scholar

55 Cottier, supra note 5 at 522.

56 Ibid at 394.

57 1985 Libya v Malta, supra note 32 at para 46 [emphasis added].

58 Case law suggests that there is no fixed list of “relevant circumstances” that might require adjustment of a provisional equidistance line. See 1969 North Sea, supra note 14 at para 101; 1982 Tunisia v Libya, supra note 31 at para 76; 1984 Gulf of Maine, supra note 39 at para 112.

59 1982 Tunisia v Libya, supra note 31 at para 132.

60 Ibid at para 70.

61 1969 North Sea, supra note 14 at para 96.

62 Cottier, supra note 5 at 527.

63 Fietta & Cleverly, supra note 22 at 27.

64 2014 Bangladesh v India, supra note 52 at para 279.

65 Aegean Sea Continental Shelf (Greece v Turkey), Judgment, [1978] ICJ Rep 3 at para 86.

66 1909 Grisbådarna, supra note 9.

67 1982 Tunisia v Libya, supra note 31; 1984 Gulf of Maine, supra note 39.

68 2009 Romania v Ukraine, supra note 8 at para 99.

69 1985 Libya v Malta, supra note 32 at paras 27, 61.

70 1982 Tunisia v Libya, supra note 31 at para 73.

71 2009 Romania v Ukraine, supra note 8 at para 77.

72 Arbitration Tribunal for the Delimitation of the Maritime Boundary between Guinea and Guinea-Bissau, Award, 14 February 1985, (1986) 25 ILM 290 at para 119 [1985 Guinea v Guinea-Bissau].

73 Acikgonul, supra note 41 at 176, 181–82.

74 1969 North Sea, supra note 14 at para 101; 1982 Tunisia v Libya, supra note 31 at para 76; 1984 Gulf of Maine, supra note 39 at para 112.

75 Fietta & Cleverly, supra note 22 at 67.

76 Delimitation of the Maritime Areas between France and Canada (St Pierre and Miquelon Islands), Judgment, 10 June 1992, (1992) 31 ILM 1149 at para 24.

77 1984 Gulf of Maine, supra note 39, Separate Opinion of Judge Schwebel.

78 1985 Libya v Malta, supra note 32 at para 47.

79 Malcolm D Evans, “Relevant Circumstances” in Oude Elferink, Henriksen & Veierud Busch, supra note 2, 222 at 260.

80 Territorial and Maritime Dispute (Nicaragua v Colombia), Judgment, [2012] ICJ Rep 624 at paras 212–16, 229, 232, 237 [2012 Nicaragua v Colombia].

81 Evans, supra note 54 at 59.

82 2009 Romania v Ukraine, supra note 8 at para 213: 2014 Bangladesh v India, supra note 52 at para 494.

83 2012 Bangladesh v Myanmar, supra note 26 at para 235.

84 Ibid at para 317.

85 2014 Bangladesh v India, supra note 52 at para 410.

86 2017 Ghana v Côte d’Ivoire, supra note 53 at para 452.

87 Arbitration between the Republic of Croatia and the Republic of Slovenia (Croatia v Slovenia), PCA Case no 2012-04 (2017) at paras 1013–14 [2017 Croatia v Slovenia].

88 Acikgonul, supra note 41 at 178.

89 Fietta & Cleverly, supra note 22 at 67–68.

90 Acikgonul, Yunus Emre, Deniz Yetki Alanlarının Hakça İlkeler Çerçevesinde Sınırlandırılması (Istanbul: Legal Publishing, 2012) at 64–88.Google Scholar

91 1977 Anglo-French, supra note 36 at para 99.

92 2012 Nicaragua v Colombia, supra note 80; 2017 Croatia v Slovenia, supra note 87 at para 1009.

93 Yoshifumi Tanaka, “The Disproportionality Test in the Law of Maritime Delimitation” in Oude Elferink, Henriksen & Veierud Busch, supra note 2, 291 at 291.

94 Acikgonul, supra note 41 at 179.

95 Higgins, Rosalyn, Problems and Process: International Law and How We Use It (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995) at 230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

96 1969 North Sea, supra note 14 at para 98.

97 2009 Romania v Ukraine, supra note 8 at paras 210–16.

98 Ibid at paras 163–68.

99 Ibid at paras 215–16.

100 Ibid at para 213.

101 2012 Bangladesh v Myanmar, supra note 26 at paras 497–99.

102 2012 Nicaragua v Colombia, supra note 80 at para 211.

103 Ibid at para 229.

104 Ibid at paras 215, 232, 237.

105 Ibid at para 240.

106 Ibid at para 242.

107 Ibid at para 247.

108 Tanaka, supra note 93 at 307–08.

109 Evans, supra note 54 at 62.

110 1982 Tunisia v Libya, supra note 31 at para 70.

111 Maritime Dispute (Peru v Chile), Judgment, [2014] ICJ Rep 3 at para 193 [2014 Peru v Chile].

112 Ibid at para 194.

113 Evans, supra note 54 at 65; Tanaka, supra note 93 at 309.

114 2014 Bangladesh v India, supra note 52 at para 492.

115 Ibid at paras 495–97.

116 2017 Croatia v Slovenia, supra note 87 at para 1001.

117 2017 Ghana v Côte d’Ivoire, supra note 53 at paras 533–37.

118 2006 Barbados v Trinidad and Tobago, supra note 24 at para 328; 1993 Jan Mayen, supra note 40 at para 69.

119 2009 Romania v Ukraine, supra note 8 at para 212.

120 Cottier, supra note 5 at 555.

121 Lucie Delabie, “The Role of Equity, Equitable Principles, and the Equitable Solution in Maritime Delimitation” in Oude Elferink, Henriksen & Veierud Busch, supra note 2, 145 at 170.

122 Cottier, supra note 5 at 554.

123 2009 Romania v Ukraine, supra note 8 at para 213.

124 Ibid.

125 1982 Tunisia v Libya, supra note 31 at para 70.

126 Tanaka, supra note 93 at 313.

127 2009 Romania v Ukraine, supra note 8 at para 201; 2012 Nicaragua v Colombia, supra note 80 at para 215.

128 For a detailed analysis of the “principle of non-cut-off,” see Acikgonul, Yunus Emre, “Reflections on the Principle of Non-Cut Off: A Growing Concept in Maritime Boundary Delimitation Law” (2016) 47:1 Ocean Dev & Intl L 52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar At the time of publication of the said article, Acikgonul presented “the non-cut-off principle” as a broader concept. However, for the purpose of this study, the “principle of non-cut-off” and the “principle of non-distortion” are separated in line with the developing case law.

129 1969 North Sea, supra note 14 at para 8; 1985 Guinea v Guinea-Bissau, supra note 72 at para 104.

130 See Acikgonul, supra note 128 at 55–64.

131 2009 Romania v Ukraine, supra note 8 at paras 77–78; 2012 Nicaragua v Colombia, supra note 80 at para 141.

132 1969 North Sea, supra note 14 at paras 85, 101.

133 1984 Gulf of Maine, supra note 39 at paras 102–03, 194–96.

134 2014 Bangladesh v India, supra note 52 at paras 404–05.

135 Kalduński, Marcin & Wasilewski, Taduesz, “The International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea on Maritime Delimitation: The 2012 Bangladesh v Myanmar Case” (2014) 45:2 Ocean Dev & Intl L 123 at 137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

136 1985 Libya v Malta, supra note 32 at para 46.

137 2014 Bangladesh v India, supra note 52 at para 419.

138 2009 Romania v Ukraine, supra note 8 at para 201.

139 1969 North Sea, supra note 14 at para 8.

140 1985 Guinea v Guinea-Bissau, supra note 72 at para 104.

141 2012 Bangladesh v Myanmar, supra note 26 at paras 291–93.

142 Ibid at para 325.

143 Ibid at paras 297, 323–24, 329.

144 2012 Nicaragua v Colombia, supra note 80 at para 216.

145 Ibid at paras 215, 232.

146 Ibid at paras 235–36.

147 Ibid at para 230.

148 2014 Bangladesh v India, supra note 52 at paras 402, 404.

149 Ibid at para 417.

150 Ibid at paras 418–21.

151 Ibid at para 419.

152 Ibid, Appendix at para 36.

153 Fietta & Cleverly, supra note 22 at 568.

154 2017 Croatia v Slovenia, supra note 87 at para 1008.

155 2006 Barbados v Trinidad and Tobago, supra note 24 at para 232.

156 2017 Croatia v Slovenia, supra note 87 at paras 1010–14.

157 Ibid at paras 1006, 1012, 1014.

158 2017 Ghana v Côte d’Ivoire, supra note 53 at para 427.

159 Ibid at para 424.

160 Ibid at para 425.

161 Kolb, Robert, Case Law on Equitable Maritime Delimitation: Digest and Commentaries (The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff, 2003) at 202 Google Scholar; 1984 Gulf of Maine, supra note 39 at para 196.

162 Namely, 2012 Bangladesh v Myanmar, 2012 Nicaragua v Colombia, 2014 Bangladesh v India, and 2017 Croatia v Slovenia.

163 Acikgonul, supra note 128 at 66.

164 2017 Croatia v Slovenia, supra note 87 at para 1009.

165 Ibid.

166 Evans, Malcolm D, Relevant Circumstances and Maritime Delimitation (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1989) at 135.Google Scholar

167 Fietta & Cleverly, supra note 22 at 579.

168 Bowett, Derek, “Islands, Rocks, Reefs, and Low-Tide Elevations in Maritime Boundary Delimitations” in Charney, Jonathan I & Alexander, LM, eds, International Maritime Boundaries, vol 1 (Dordrecht: Martinus Nijhoff, 1993) 131 at 144.Google Scholar

169 1969 North Sea, supra note 14 at para 89.

170 Ibid at para 91.

171 2009 Romania v Ukraine, supra note 8 at para 117.

172 Ibid at para 149.

173 Ibid at para 186.

174 Ibid at para 185.

175 Ibid at para 188.

176 2012 Bangladesh v Myanmar, supra note 26 at para 265.

177 Ibid at para 317.

178 Ibid at para 151.

179 Ibid at paras 318–19.

180 Reichler, Paul S, “A Case of Equitable Maritime Delimitation: Nicaragua and Colombia in the Western Caribbean Sea” (2013) 2:3 Rev Trib Intl 129 at 143–44.Google Scholar

181 2012 Nicaragua v Colombia, supra note 80 at para 202.

182 Ibid at paras 215, 232.

183 Ibid at para 238.

184 2014 Bangladesh v India, supra note 52 at paras 261, 263–64.

185 Fietta & Cleverly, supra note 22 at 568.

186 1969 North Sea, supra note 14 at para 91.

187 2017 Croatia v Slovenia, supra note 87 at para 1009.

188 Ibid at paras 1010, 1012.

189 Counter-Memorial of the Republic of Côte d’Ivoire (Ghana v Côte d’Ivoire), ITLOS Case no 23 (2016) at paras 7.45–7.47.

190 2017 Croatia v Slovenia, supra note 87 at para 1011.

191 McLlarky, Kathleen A, “Guinea/Guinea-Bissau: Dispute Concerning Delimitation of the Maritime Boundary, February 14, 1985” (1987) 11:1 Maryland J Intl L 93 at 105.Google Scholar

192 For a detailed discussion on the matter, see Acikgonul, supra note 128.

193 2012 Bangladesh v Myanmar, supra note 26 at para 234.

194 Clive H Schofield & Victor Prescott, The Maritime Political Boundaries of the World (Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff, 2005) at 217–18.

195 Schofield, Clive H, “Islands or Rocks — Is That the Real Question?: The Treatment of Islands in the Delimitation of Maritime Boundaries” in Nordquist, Myron H et al, eds, The Law of the Sea Convention: US Accession and Globalization, Center for Oceans and Law Policy, vol 15 (Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff, 2012) 322 at 339.Google Scholar

196 Evans, supra note 54 at 260.

197 Acikgonul, supra note 41 at 192.

198 Evans, supra note 54 at 61.

199 Leonardo Bernard, “The Role of Islands on Maritime Boundaries Delimitation: A Look at the Recent Decision of ITLOS” in Guifang (Julia) Xue and Ashley White, eds, 30 Years of UNCLOS (1982–2012): Progress and Prospects (Beijing: China University of Political Science and Law Press, 2013) 240 at 248.

200 Evans, supra note 54 at 251.

201 Fietta & Cleverly, supra note 22 at 52. See also 1993 Jan Mayen, supra note 40 at para 48; 2001 Qatar v Bahrain, supra note 40 at para 201.

202 Evans, supra note 54 at 47.

203 Cottier, supra note 5 at 635.

204 1969 North Sea, supra note 14 at para 85.

205 2007 Guyana v Suriname, supra note 33 at para 335.

206 2009 Romania v Ukraine, supra note 8 at paras 102–03.

207 2014 Peru v Chile, supra note 111 at para 180, citing 2009 Romania v Ukraine, supra note 8 at paras 115–22, 2012 Nicaragua v Colombia, supra note 80 at paras 190–93, and 2017 Croatia v Slovenia, supra note 87 at para 999.

208 Eiriksson, Gudmundur, “The Bay of Bengal Case before the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea” in Castillo Laborde, L Del, ed, Law of the Sea: From Grotius to the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea: Liber Amicorum Judge Hugo Caminos (Leiden: Brill/Nijhoff, 2015) 513 at 519–20.Google Scholar

209 Fietta & Cleverly, supra note 22 at 54.

210 2012 Bangladesh v Myanmar, supra note 26 at para 238.

211 2012 Nicaragua v Colombia, supra note 80 at para 190.

212 2014 Peru v Chile, supra note 111 at para 180.

213 2017 Ghana v Côte d’Ivoire, supra note 53 at para 284.

214 Constantinos Yiallourides & Elizabeth Rose Donnelly, “Part II: Analysis of Dispute Concerning Delimitation of the Maritime Boundary between Ghana and Côte d’Ivoire in the Atlantic Ocean” (20 October 2017), online: EJIL Talk! <www.ejiltalk.org/part-ii-analysis-of-dispute-concerning-delimitation-of-the-maritime-boundary-between-ghana-and-cote-divoire-in-the-atlantic-ocean/>.

215 2006 Barbados v Trinidad and Tobago, supra note 24 at paras 242, 306.

216 2009 Romania v Ukraine, supra note 8 at para 116.

217 2014 Bangladesh v India, supra note 52 at para 343.

218 Donald McRae, “The Applicable Law” in Oude Elferink, Henriksen & Veierud Busch, supra note 2, 92 at 115.

219 Ibid at 110.

220 Ibid.

221 Evans, supra note 54 at 62.

222 1969 North Sea, supra note 14 at para 93.

223 1982 Tunisia v Libya, supra note 31 at para 132.

224 2012 Bangladesh v Myanmar, supra note 26 at para 435.

225 Ibid at para 437.

226 Ibid at para 455.

227 Guðmundsdóttir, Helga, The Unnatural Life Cycle of Natural Prolongation in the Delimitation of the Continental Shelf (Magister Juris dissertation, University of Iceland, 2015) [unpublished] at 29, 56–57 Google Scholar; 2012 Bangladesh v Myanmar, supra note 26 at para 361.

228 2014 Bangladesh v India, supra note 52 at para 457.

229 Ibid at para 465.

230 2017 Ghana v Côte d’Ivoire, supra note 53 at paras 526–27.

231 Fietta & Cleverly, supra note 22 at 611, 616.

232 UNCLOS, supra note 20, art 76(1).

233 Fietta & Cleverly, supra note 22 at 578–79.

234 2009 Romania v Ukraine, supra note 8 at para 137.

235 Ibid at para 117.

236 Ibid at para 149.

237 2012 Bangladesh v Myanmar, supra note 26 at paras 264–65.

238 2012 Nicaragua v Colombia, supra note 80 at paras 201–03.

239 Fietta & Cleverly, supra note 22 at 568.

240 Coalter G Lathrop, “The Provisional Equidistance Line” in Oude Elferink, Henriksen & Veierud Busch, supra note 2, 200 at 211.

241 Davor Vidas et al, “The Delimitation of the Territorial Sea, the Continental Shelf, and the EEZ” in Oude Elferink, Henriksen & Veierud Busch, supra note 2, 33 at 57.

242 Evans, Malcolm D, “Maritime Boundary Delimitation” in Rothwell, Donald et al, eds, Oxford Handbook on the Law of the Sea (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015) at 255, 257.Google Scholar

243 Lathrop, supra note 240 at 206.

244 Fietta & Cleverly, supra note 22 at 578.

245 2014 Bangladesh v India, supra note 52 at para 339.

246 2012 Nicaragua v Colombia, supra note 80 at para 196.

247 The ICJ provided that it is “the terrestrial territorial situation that must be taken as starting point for the determination of the maritime rights of a coastal State. In accordance with Article 121, paragraph 2, of the 1982 Convention on the Law of the Sea, which reflects customary international law, islands, regardless of their size, in this respect enjoy the same status, and therefore generate the same maritime rights, as other land territory.” 2001 Qatar v Bahrain, supra note 40 at para 185.

248 David Anderson, “Islands and Rocks in the Modern Law of the Sea” in Nordquist et al, supra note 195, 307 at 316.

249 Evans, supra note 54 at 251.

250 Convention between Great Britain and Russia, 28 February 1825, 75 Cons TS 95, reprinted in Great Britain, British and Foreign State Papers, vol 12 (1824–25) (London: James Ridgway and Sons, 1846) at 38–43 (entered into force 9 April 1825).

251 Baker, James S & Byers, Michael, “Crossed Lines: The Curious Case of the Beaufort Sea Maritime Boundary Dispute” (2012) 43:1 Ocean Dev & Intl L 70 Google Scholar; Gillott, Roger, “The Principle of Non-Encroachment: Implications for the Beaufort Sea” (1994) 32 Can YB Intl L 259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

252 Weidemaier, W Mark C, “Toward a Theory of Precedent in Arbitration” (2010) 51 Wm & Mary L Rev 1895 at 1900.Google Scholar

253 Charney, supra note 28 at 228.