Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2plfb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T01:56:31.989Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

THE LEGAL FRAMEWORK GOVERNING HYDROCARBON ACTIVITIES IN UNDELIMITED MARITIME AREAS

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 February 2019

Nicholas A. Ioannides
Nicholas A. Ioannides*
Affiliation:
Adjunct Lecturer of Public International Law, University of Nicosia, [email protected].
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Owing to soaring energy needs and improved drilling technology, offshore hydrocarbon activities have been on the rise in recent years. A delimited maritime boundary is an essential precondition for the establishment of a safe and stable environment which will facilitate investment and development. Nevertheless, the conclusion of delimitation agreements can be a difficult task due to competing interests and long-standing enmities among neighbouring countries. Significant maritime areas remain undelimited. In order to avoid the problems of both unilateral activities and a complete ‘moratorium’ in undelimited areas, Articles 74(3) and 83(3) of the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea impose two obligations of conduct: pending delimitation agreement, States are under duty to ‘make every effort to enter into provisional arrangements of a practical nature’, while, at the same time, the interested parties should refrain from acts that might ‘jeopardize or hamper the reaching of the final agreement’. Bearing this in mind, it is argued that unilateral drilling and, under certain circumstances, unilateral seismic surveys in undelimited maritime areas should not be allowed and such conduct might trigger State responsibility. However, given that complete inactivity in such areas was not the intention of the drafters of the Convention, it is argued that several activities may be permitted as long as they are performed in good faith and do not put any final agreement at risk.

Keywords

public international lawmaritime delimitationState responsibilityundelimited maritime areashydrocarbonsdrillingseismic surveysUNCLOSgood faith
Type
Articles
Information
International & Comparative Law Quarterly , Volume 68 , Issue 2 , April 2019 , pp. 345 - 368
Copyright
Copyright © British Institute of International and Comparative Law 2019 

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

I would like to thank Professor Sir Malcolm D Evans, Dr Naomi Burke, Dr Constantinos Yiallourides, as well as the two anonymous reviewers for their invaluable comments. Any errors are my own.

References

1 North Sea Continental Shelf (Judgment) [1969] ICJ Rep 3, para 48; Bowett, DW, ‘The Economic Factor in Maritime Delimitation Cases’ in International Law at the Time of its Codification: Essays in Honour of Roberto Ago (Giuffrè Editore 1987) 53Google Scholar; Kwiatkowska, B, ‘Economic and Environmental Considerations in Maritime Boundary Delimitations’ in Charney, JI and Alexander, LM (eds), International Maritime Boundaries (Martinus Nijhoff 1993) vol I, 75Google Scholar; Tanaka, Y, Predictability and Flexibility in the Law of Maritime Delimitation (Hart Publishing 2006) 287–8Google Scholar; Continental Shelf (Libyan Arab Jamahiriyia/Malta) (Judgment) [1985] ICJ Rep 13, para 50; McDorman, TL et al. , ‘The Gulf of Maine Boundary: Dropping Anchor or Setting a Course?’ (1985) 9(2) Marine Policy 101CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Attard, D, The Exclusive Economic Zone in International Law (Clarendon Press 1987) 275Google Scholar; Cottier, T, Equitable Principles of Maritime Boundary Delimitation: The Quest for Distributive Justice in International Law (Cambridge University Press 2015) 456, 559, 583CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Evans, MD, ‘Maritime Boundary Delimitation’ in Rothwell, DR et al. (eds), The Oxford Handbook of the Law of the Sea (Oxford University Press 2015) 274Google Scholar; Rothwell, DR and Stephens, T, The International Law of the Sea (2nd edn, Hart Publishing 2016) 85Google Scholar; Fietta, S and Cleverly, R, A Practitioner's Guide to Maritime Boundary Delimitation (Oxford University Press 2016) 88–9Google Scholar; this observation also applies to continental lands: ‘the prospect of the future exploration and exploitation of oil resources led directly to the first tentative steps toward the establishment of boundaries’. Dubai/Sharjah Border Arbitration [1981] 91 ILR 543, 562.

2 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (signed 10 December 1982, entered into force 16 November 1994) 1833 UNTS 3.

3 British Institute of International and Comparative Law (BIICL), Report on the Obligations of States under Articles 74(3) and 83(3) of UNCLOS in respect of Undelimited Maritime Areas (2016) 1.

4 Continental Shelf (Tunisia/Libyan Arab Jamahiriya) (Judgment) [1982] ICJ Rep 18, para 34; Maritime Delimitation in the Black Sea (Romania v Ukraine) (Judgment) [2009] ICJ Rep 61, para 99; Cottier (n 1) 460; T Davenport, , ‘The Exploration and Exploitation of Hydrocarbon Resources in Areas of Overlapping Claims’ in Beckman, R et al. (eds), Beyond Territorial Disputes in the South China Sea: Legal Frameworks for the Joint Development of Hydrocarbon Resources (Edward Elgar 2013) 106Google Scholar; BIICL Report (n 3) 30–1.

5 Territorial and Maritime Dispute (Nicaragua v Colombia) (Judgment) [2012] ICJ Rep 624, para 159 (emphasis added); Black Sea case (n 4) para 99; Maritime Delimitation in the Caribbean Sea and the Pacific Ocean (Costa Rica v Nicaragua) (Judgment) [2018] ICJ Rep 1, para 115.

6 ‘States Parties shall fulfil in good faith the obligations assumed under this Convention and shall exercise the rights, jurisdiction and freedoms recognized in this Convention in a manner which would not constitute an abuse of right.’ LOSC (n 2) art 300; Murphy, SD, International Law relating to Islands (Brill 2017) 258CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

7 BIICL Report (n 3) 30–1; interestingly enough, in the Jan Mayen case the ICJ made a distinction between an area which a State claims (‘area of overlapping claims’) and an area on which a State might actually have entitlements (‘area of potential overlapping entitlement’). Maritime Delimitation in the Area between Greenland and Jan Mayen (Denmark v Norway) [1993] ICJ Rep 38, paras 18–19.

8 ‘The importance of stable and definitive maritime boundaries is all the more essential when the exploration and exploitation of the resources of the continental shelf are at stake … the sovereign rights of coastal States, and therefore the maritime boundaries between them, must be determined with precision to allow for development and investment.’ (Emphasis added.) Bangladesh v India Award [2014] para 218 https://pcacases.com/web/sendAttach/383; Aegean Sea Continental Shelf Case (Greece v Turkey) (Judgment) [1978] ICJ Rep 3, para 85; Land and Maritime Boundary between Cameroon and Nigeria (Cameroon v Nigeria: Equatorial Guinea intervening), Rejoinder of Nigeria, para 10.39.

9 Leanza, U, ‘The Delimitation of the Continental Shelf of the Mediterranean Sea’ (1993) 8(3) IJMCL 373, 394Google Scholar.

10 See sections IIA2, IIA4 and IIB.

11 LOSC (n 2) arts 74(3) and 83(3) (emphasis added); according to Lagoni, the deliberations during UNCLOS III reveal that para 3 of arts 74 and 83 LOSC does not represent a codification of international law. Lagoni, R, ‘Interim Measures Pending Maritime Delimitation Agreements’ (1984) 78(2) AJIL 345, 354CrossRefGoogle Scholar; even though it is argued that State practice in several regions could be evidence that these provisions express general principles of international law, there is no clear determination on whether art 74(3) and 83(3) LOSC have been crystallized into rules of customary international law. BIICL Report (n 3) 43, 54, 114; there was a shared understanding between the delegations at UNCLOS III that interim measures were necessary in cases of pending delimitation. Lagoni (n 11) 353; such provisional measures are called ‘sovereignty-neutral’. Rothwell and Stephens (n 1) 443.

12 Guyana v Suriname Award [2007] 30 RIAA 1, para 459; Nordquist, MH, Rosenne, S and Nandan, SN (eds), United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea 1982: A Commentary (Martinus Nijhoff 1993) vol II, 815Google Scholar; Lagoni (n 11) 354; arguably, the obligation to make every effort to enter into provisional arrangements occurs as soon as overlapping claims have been set forth by the interested parties. BIICL Report (n 3) 17; the obligations included in these provisions emerge even when one of the parties in a dispute refuses to negotiate. Tanaka, Y, ‘Unilateral Exploration and Exploitation of Natural Resources in Disputed Areas: A Note on the Ghana/Côte d'Ivoire Order of 25 April 2015 before the Special Chamber of ITLOS’ (2015) 46(4) ODIL 315, 316CrossRefGoogle Scholar; see also fn 91.

13 Land and Maritime Boundary between Cameroon and Nigeria (Cameroon v Nigeria: Equatorial Guinea intervening) (Judgment) [2002] ICJ Rep 303, para 244; Guyana v Suriname (n 12) para 461; Delimitation of the Maritime Boundary in the Atlantic Ocean (Ghana/Côte d'Ivoire), Judgment, ITLOS Reports 2017, 4, para 627; Railway Traffic between Lithuania and Poland (Advisory Opinion) [1931] PCIJ Rep Series A/B No 42, 116 (an obligation to negotiate does not entail an obligation to reach an agreement); Milano, E and Papanicolopulu, I, ‘State Responsibility in Disputed Areas on Land and at Sea’ (2011) 71(3) Zeitschrift für Ausländisches Öffentliches Recht und Völkerrecht 611, 613, 615–16Google Scholar; Davenport (n 4) 110– 11; Redgwell, C, ‘International Regulation of Energy Activities’ in Roggenkamp, M et al. (eds), Energy Law in Europe: National, EU and International Regulation (3rd edn, Oxford University Press 2016) 61–2Google Scholar; BIICL Report (n 3) 13; as stated by the Special Chamber of the ITLOS, the obligation ‘not to jeopardize’ is an obligation of conduct as well. See fn 87.

14 Lagoni (n 11) 359.

15 ‘The Special Chamber notes, however, that the language in which the obligation is couched indicates that the parties concerned are under a duty to act in good faith.’ Ghana/Côte d'Ivoire (n 13) para 627; see section A3.

16 The Palestine Mavrommatis Concessions [1924] PCIJ Rep Series A No 2, 13; Tacna-Arica Question (Chile/Peru) [1925] 2 RIAA 921, 929–34; Lac Lanoux Arbitration (Spain v France) [1957] 12 RIAA 281, 306–17; North Sea cases (n 1) paras 85–87; Fisheries Jurisdiction (United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland v Iceland) (Judgment) [1974] ICJ Rep 3, para 79(3); Fisheries Jurisdiction (Federal Republic of Germany v Iceland) (Judgment) [1974] ICJ Rep 175, para 77(3); Delimitation of the Maritime Boundary in the Gulf of Maine Area (Canada/United States of America) (Judgment) [1984] ICJ Rep 246, para 87; according to Lagoni, the obligation to negotiate in good faith ceases only when the negotiations lead to an agreement. Lagoni (n 11) 357; but see also fn 91; Ong, DM, ‘Joint Development of Common Offshore Oil and Gas Deposits: “Mere” State Practice or Customary International Law?’ (1999) 93(4) AJIL 783–4CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Cameron, PD, ‘The Rules of Engagement: Developing Cross-Border Petroleum Deposits in the North Sea and the Caribbean’ (2006) 55(3) ICLQ 559, 562–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Kwiatkowska, B, ‘Equitable Maritime Boundary Delimitation: A Legal Perspective’ (1988) 3(4) IJCEL 287, 293–4Google Scholar; Klein, N, ‘Provisional Measures and Provisional Arrangements in Maritime Boundary Disputes’ (2006) 21(4) IJMCL 423Google Scholar.

17 See sections IIB and IIC; Tanaka, Y, ‘Article 74: Delimitation of the Exclusive Economic Zone between States with Opposite or Adjacent Coasts’ in Prölss, A, United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea: A Commentary (Beck-Hart-Nomos 2017) 579Google Scholar; BIICL Report (n 3) 19; Logchem, Y van, ‘The Scope for Unilateralism in Disputed Maritime Areas’ in Schofield, C et al. (eds), The Limits of Maritime Jurisdiction (Martinus Nijhoff 2014) 179–81Google Scholar; Davenport (n 4) 100, 102–3; Guyana v Suriname Award, CounterMemorial of Suriname, 117; Delimitation of the Maritime Boundary in the Atlantic Ocean (Ghana/Côte d'Ivoire) Reply of Ghana, 151–2.

18 Nordquist et al. (n 12) 815, 970, 972, 975.

19 Statement by the Chairman, NG 7/26 (26 March 1979) in Platzöder, R (ed), Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea: Documents (Oceana Publications 1987) vol IX, 434Google Scholar (emphasis added).

20 Guyana v Suriname (n 12) paras 460, 465, 470 (emphasis added).

21 Nordquist et al. (n 12) 815, 984; Lagoni (n 11) 362; Fietta and Cleverly (n 1) 117; see section IIC.

22 Delimitation of the Maritime Boundary in the Gulf of Maine Area (Canada/United States of America), Memorial of Canada, para 222 (emphasis added); see also the 1997 Additional Agreement between Romania and Ukraine whereby the two States pledged to refrain from unilateral hydrocarbon activities pending delimitation. Reproduced in Maritime Delimitation in the Black Sea (Romania v Ukraine) Memorial of Romania, 80–1; within the context of the Timor-Leste/Australia conciliation, one of the confidence-building measures proposed by the Conciliation Commission envisaged that Australia should remove an offered offshore block situated in an area where Timor-Leste had also laid claims. Report and Recommendations of the Compulsory Conciliation Commission between Timor-Leste and Australia (09 May 2018), para 95(4); for additional examples of restraint see BIICL Report (n 3) 40–116.

23 D Meier, ‘Lebanon's Maritime Boundaries: Between Economic Opportunities and Military Confrontation’ (2013) <http://lebanesestudies.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/maritime.pdf> 6, 10.

24 Decree 42/2017 and Decree 43/2017 <http://www.lpa.gov.lb/>.

25 Based on a study completed by the Lebanese Petroleum Administration, the blocks that were opened for bidding during the first licensing round are: blocks 1, 4, 8, 9 and 10.’ <http://www.lpa.gov.lb>.

26 Communication from the Permanent Mission of Israel to the United Nations transmitted to the Secretary-General on 2 February 2017.

27 Lebanese Petroleum Administration, ‘First Offshore Licensing Round Results’ (14 December 2017) <http://www.lpa.gov.lb/prequalification%20results.php>.

28 Israel Note Verbale transmitted to the Secretary-General of the United Nations (21 December 2017); Lebanon Note Verbale transmitted to the Secretary-General of the United Nations (26 January 2018).

29 ‘Total strengthens its position in the Mediterranean region by entering two exploration blocks offshore Lebanon’ (Total, Press Release, 9 February 2018) <https://www.total.com/en/media/news/press-releases/total-strengthens-position-in-mediterranean-region-by-entering-two-exploration-blocks-offshore-lebanon>.

30 Lax, HL, Political Risk in the International Oil and Gas Industry (Springer 1983) 8–9Google Scholar; Pratt, M and Smith, D, How to Deal with Maritime Boundary Uncertainty in Oil and Gas Exploration and Production Areas (AIPN 2007)Google Scholar; Blyschak, PM, ‘Offshore Oil and Gas Projects Amid Maritime Border Disputes: Applicable Law’ (2013) 6(3) JWELB 211Google Scholar; Yiallourides, C, ‘Oil and Gas Development in Disputed Waters under UNCLOS’ (2016) 5(1) UCL Journal of Law and Jurisprudence 81–5Google Scholar.

31 McLaughlin, RJ, ‘Maritime Boundary Delimitation and Cooperative Management of Transboundary Hydrocarbons in the Ultra-deepwaters of the Gulf of Mexico’ in Hong, S-Y and Dyke, JM Van (eds), Maritime Boundary Disputes, Settlement Processes, and the Law of the Sea (Martinus Nijhoff 2009) 211Google Scholar.

32 BIICL Report (n 3) 20–1; Nicaragua reserved its right to claim compensation for any natural resources that may have been extracted on its side of the delimitation line prior to its establishment. Territorial and Maritime Dispute between Nicaragua and Honduras in the Caribbean Sea (Nicaragua v Honduras), Memorial of Nicaragua, 4.

33 United States, ‘Proclamation by the President with respect to the Natural Resources of the Subsoil and Seabed of the Continental Shelf’ (28 September 1945). Reproduced in 40 Supplement to AJIL (1946) 45; Convention on the Continental Shelf (signed 29 April 1958, entered into force 10 June 1964) 499 UNTS 311, art 2(2)(3); North Sea cases (n 1) paras 18–20, 63; Aegean Sea case (n 8) para 85; LOSC (n 2) art 77(2)(3); Maritime Boundary in the Bay of Bengal (Bangladesh/Myanmar), Judgment, ITLOS Reports 2012, 4, paras 408–409; Nicaragua v Colombia (n 5) para 115; ‘boundaries are found, not made’. Blecher, MD, ‘Equitable Delimitation of Continental Shelf’ (1979) 73(1) AJIL 63CrossRefGoogle Scholar; ‘[i]t must be kept in mind that judges find entitlements; under no circumstances may they grant them’. Delimitation of the Maritime Boundary in the Bay of Bengal (Bangladesh/Myanmar), Judgment, ITLOS Reports 2012 at 151, Separate Opinion of Judge Ndiaye, para 88; see section IIB.

34 Ghana/Côte d'Ivoire (n 13) paras 591–594; for a brief commentary on that judgment see section IIB.

35 Shaw, M, International Law (8th edn, Cambridge University Press 2017) 77CrossRefGoogle Scholar; R Kolb, Good Faith in International Law (Hart Publishing 2017).

36 Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Cooperation among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, UNGA Res 2625 (XXV) (24 October 1970).

37 Right of Passage over Indian Territory (Portugal v India) (Judgment) [1960] ICJ Rep 6, 142; Shaw (n 35) 685.

38 The Philippines v China Award [2016] paras 1171–1172 <https://pca-cpa.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/175/2016/07/PH-CN-20160712-Award.pdf>.

39 Nuclear Tests Case (Australia v France) (Judgment) [1974] ICJ Rep 253, para 46; Nuclear Tests Case (New Zealand v France) (Judgment) [1974] ICJ Rep 457, para 49.

40 Reinhold, S, ‘Good Faith in International Law’ (2013) 2 UCL Journal of Law and Jurisprudence 49, 53Google Scholar; LOSC (n 2) art 300.

41 North Sea cases (n 1) paras 85, 87; Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons (Advisory Opinion) [1996] ICJ Rep 226, paras 99, 102–103; Gabčíkovo-Nagymaros Project (Hungary/Slovakia) (Judgment) [1997] ICJ Rep 7, paras 141–143; Pulp Mills on the River Uruguay (Argentina v Uruguay) (Judgment) [2010] ICJ Rep 14, para 145.

42 Reinhold (n 40) 56.

43 Lukashuk, II, ‘The Principle Pacta Sunt Servanda and the Nature of Obligation under International Law’ (1989) 83(3) AJIL 513, 514CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

44 International Law Commission, ‘Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts’ with commentaries (53rd Session, 2001) UN Doc A/56/10. Reproduced in YBILC, Vol II (2001) art 30.

45 ibid 126.

46 Reservations to the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Advisory Opinion) [1951] ICJ Rep 15, at 23.

47 Questions relating to the Obligation to Prosecute or Extradite (Belgium v Senegal) (Judgment) [2012] ICJ Rep 26, paras 68–69 (emphasis added); in the Whaling case, Australia invoked Japan's responsibility under the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling. Whaling in the Antarctic (Australia v Japan) (Application instituting proceedings) ICJ (31 May 2010).

48 Kramer, BM and Anderson, OL, ‘The Rule of Capture: An Oil and Gas Perspective’ (2005) 35 Environmental Law 899Google Scholar.

49 Lagoni, R, ‘Oil and Gas Deposits Across National Frontiers’ (1979) 73 AJIL 217, 219–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Robson, C, ‘Transboundary Petroleum Reservoir: Legal Issues and Solutions’ in Blake, G et al. , The Peaceful Management of Transboundary Resources (Graham and Trotman/Martinus Nijhoff 1995) 3Google Scholar; R Bundy, ‘Natural Resource Development (Oil and Gas) and Boundary Disputes’ in Blake ibid 23; T Daintith, ‘Finders Keepers? How the Law of Capture Shaped the World Oil Industry’ (RFF Press 2010) 370–2, 394; NA Ioannides, ‘The China-Japan and Venezuela-Guyana Maritime Disputes: how the law on undelimited maritime areas addresses unilateral hydrocarbon activities’ (EJIL:Talk! 25 January 2019) <https://www.ejiltalk.org/the-china-japan-and-venezuela-guyana-maritime-disputes-how-the-law-on-undelimited-maritime-areas-addresses-unilateral-hydrocarbon-activities/>.

50 Lagoni (n 49) 235; Crawford, J, Chance, Order, Change: The Course of International Law (Hague Academy of International Law 2014) 504Google Scholar.

51 Loja, MH, ‘Is the Rule of Capture Countenanced in the South China Sea? The Policy and Practice of China, the Philippines and Vietnam’ (2014) 32(4) JENRL 483, 508Google Scholar.

52 DM Ong, ‘Implications of Recent Southeast Asian State Practice for the International Law on Offshore Joint Development’ in Beckman et al. (n 4) 215–16; Townsend-Gault, I, ‘The Malaysia/Thailand Joint Development Arrangement’ in Fox, H (ed), Joint Development of Offshore Oil and Gas (BIICL 1990) vol II, 182Google Scholar.

53 Ong (n 52) 204–8, 216.

54 The Philippines v China Award (n 38) paras 705–706; Accordance with International Law of the Unilateral Declaration of Independence in respect of Kosovo (Advisory Opinion) [2010] ICJ Rep 403.

55 The Philippines v China Award (n 38) paras 704–708; Lagoni holds the view that the sailing of warships linked to the subject matter of the controversy in the disputed area could jeopardize or hamper the conclusion of a final agreement. Lagoni (n 11) 354, 365.

56 O'Connell, DP, The International Law of the Sea (Shearer, IA ed, Clarendon Press 1982) vol I, 477–80Google Scholar; Kwiatkowska, B, The 200 Mile Exclusive Economic Zone in the Law of the Sea (Martinus Nijhoff 1989) 233Google Scholar; Rothwell, DR and Klein, N, ‘Maritime Security and the Law of the Sea’ in Klein, N et al. (eds), Maritime Security: International Law and Policy Perspectives from Australia and New Zealand (Routledge 2010) 28Google Scholar; The Philippines v China Award (n 38) paras 248–249.

57 BIICL Report (n 3) 20.

58 LOSC (n 2) art 58(3).

59 Fisheries Case (United Kingdom v Norway) [1951] ICJ Rep 116, 132; Tunisia/Libya (n 4) para 87.

60 LOSC (n 2) arts 56(2), 58(1)(2).

61 The Electricity Company of Sofia and Bulgaria (Interim Measures of Protection) [1939] PCIJ Rep Series AB No 79, 199; see also Trail Smelter case (United States/Canada) [1941] 3 RIAA 1905, 1965; The Philippines v China Award (n 38) paras 1169, 1176; Ong (n 16) 798–801.

62 Aegean Sea Continental Shelf (Greece v Turkey) (Interim Protection), Separate Opinion of Judge Elias, 28.

63 Ghana/Côte d'Ivoire (n 13) para 225.

64 Trail Smelter case (n 61); Nuclear Weapons Advisory Opinion (n 41) para 29; MOX Plant (Ireland v United Kingdom), Provisional Measures, Order of 3 December 2001, ITLOS Reports 2001, 95, para 82; Pulp Mills (n 41) para 101; BIICL Report (n 3) 20; the LOSC attaches great importance to and contains a range of detailed provisions concerning the protection of the marine environment. On this matter see: C Yiallourides, ‘Environmental Protection in Undelimited Waters: Caution, Precaution and the Limits of International Law’ Global Ocean Regime Conference: Promoting Cooperation in Overlapping Maritime Areas (Jeju-do, 16–18 May 2018).

65 Delimitation of the Maritime Boundary in the Atlantic Ocean (Ghana/Côte d'Ivoire), Provisional Measures, Order of 25 April 2015, ITLOS Reports 2015, 146, paras 68–73 (see relevant case law cited by the Special Chamber).

66 ibid paras 89–91, 99, 101, 108(1)(c)(d); see also section IIB.

67 Aegean Sea Continental Shelf (Greece v Turkey) (Interim Protection) Order of 11 September 1976, ICJ Rep 3, paras 30–33.

68 ibid para 29.

69 Aegean Sea Continental Shelf (Greece v Turkey) (Interim Protection), Separate Opinion of Judge Mosler, 26; ‘I consider equally irreparable the prejudice caused by the gathering of information [by Turkey] on the resources of the Greek shelf and the possibility of disclosing them, which would raise an insurmountable obstacle to their exploitation … .’ Aegean Sea Continental Shelf (Greece v Turkey) (Interim Protection), Dissenting Opinion of Judge Stassinopoulos, 37; Aegean Sea Continental Shelf (Greece v Turkey) (Interim Protection), Request by Greece for Interim Measures, 64.

70 Aegean Sea case (n 67) para 31; Guyana v Suriname (n 12) para 469; van Logchem (n 17) 187–91; Murphy (n 6) 268.

71 The ITLOS Special Chamber also pondered the risk of damage occurring from data gathering. See fn 82.

72 In case of unilateral seismic surveys that are being conducted in a maritime area indisputably falling within the jurisdiction of a coastal State by virtue of a duly declared EEZ and an established maritime boundary, an infringement of arts 56 and 77 LOSC occurs. See section IIA2.

73 See fn 20; Tanaka, Y, ‘The Guyana/Suriname Arbitration: A Commentary’ (2007) 2(3) HJJ 28Google Scholar; Fietta, S, ‘Guyana/Suriname’ (2008) 102(1) AJIL 119, 119–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Fietta, S, ‘Introductory Note to Arbitral Tribunal Decision Guyana v Suriname’ (2008) 47(2) ILM 164, 164–5Google Scholar; Fietta and Cleverly (n 1) 439–52; Davenport (n 4) 100–4.

74 Guyana v Suriname (n 12) paras 460, 466–468, 470, 480–481; Y Tanaka, ‘Article 83: Delimitation of the Continental Shelf between States with Opposite or Adjacent Coasts’ in Prölss (n 17) 665.

75 Guyana v Suriname (n 12) para 488(2)(3).

76 Ghana/Côte d'Ivoire (n 65) paras 88–91; Lamus, A Sarmiento and Quintero, R González, ‘Request for Provisional Measures in the Dispute concerning Delimitation of the Maritime Boundary between Ghana and Côte d'Ivoire in the Atlantic Ocean (Ghana/Côte d'Ivoire)’ (2016) 31(1) IJMCL 160Google Scholar.

77 Ghana/Côte d'Ivoire (n 65) paras 96, 102, Dispositif para 1(a).

78 ibid para 103; see also M/V “SAIGA” (No 2) (Saint Vincent and the Grenadines v Guinea), Provisional Measures, Order of 11 March 1998, ITLOS Reports 1998, 24, para 44; M/V “Louisa” (Saint Vincent and the Grenadines v Kingdom of Spain), Provisional Measures, Order of 23 December 2010, ITLOS Reports 2008-2010, 58, para 79; “Arctic Sunrise” (Kingdom of the Netherlands v Russian Federation), Provisional Measures, Order of 22 November 2013, ITLOS Reports 2013, 230, para 99.

79 Ghana/Côte d'Ivoire (n 65) paras 98–100.

80 Tanaka (n 12) 325; this was later on confirmed by the Special Chamber on the merits. Ghana/Côte d'Ivoire (n 13) para 633.

81 Tanaka (n 12) 325, 327; see fns 92–93.

82 Ghana/Côte d'Ivoire (n 65) paras 94–95, 108(1)(b).

83 See fns 67 and 69.

84 Murphy (n 6) 268–9.

85 C Yiallourides, ‘Protecting and Preserving the Marine Environment in Disputed Areas: Seismic Noise and Provisional Measures of Protection’ (2017) JENRL 1; Recommendations issued following a workshop on ‘Mitigating the impact of underwater noise on marine biodiversity in the south eastern European waters in the Mediterranean Sea’ (22–23 November 2017 – Split, Croatia); L Weilgart, ‘The Impact of Ocean Noise Pollution on Fish and Invertebrates’ (Oceancare 2018).

86 Ghana/Côte d'Ivoire (n 13) para 594.

87 ibid paras 629–634; Ioannides, NA, ‘A Commentary on the Dispute Concerning Delimitation of the Maritime Boundary between Ghana and Côte d'Ivoire in the Atlantic Ocean (Ghana/Côte d'Ivoire)’ (2017) 3 MSSLJ 48Google Scholar; see sections IIA2–A4.

88 See section IIA2.

89 Ghana/Côte d'Ivoire (n 13) paras 586–588.

90 Certain Activities carried out by Nicaragua in the Border Area (Costa Rica v Nicaragua) and Construction of a Road in Costa Rica Along the San Juan River (Nicaragua v Costa Rica) (Judgment) [2015] ICJ Rep 665, para 97.

91 If one of the parties is reluctant to enter into negotiations and does not acquiesce in the other party's research activities in a certain disputed area, it should be prepared to justify its decision, otherwise it could be considered as acting in bad faith. Lagoni (n 11) 366; Ong (n 16) 802–3; Reference re Secession of Quebec [1998] 2 SCR 217, paras 95, 103.

92 Delimitation of the Maritime Boundary in the Atlantic Ocean (Ghana/Côte d'Ivoire), Judgment, ITLOS Reports 2017, 4, Separate Opinion of Judge Paik, para 19; the Chamber's position on activities in the undelimited area has been criticized by several authors. N Bankes, ‘ITLOS Judgment in the Maritime Boundary Dispute between Ghana and Côte d'Ivoire’ (The JCLOS Blog, 27 October 2017) <http://site.uit.no/jclos/2017/10/27/itlos-judgment-in-the-maritime-boundary-dispute-between-ghana-and-cote-divoire/>; N Ermolina and C Yiallourides, ‘State Responsibility for Unilateral Hydrocarbon Activities in Disputed Maritime Areas: The case of Ghana and Côte d'Ivoire and its implications’ (The JCLOS Blog, 23 November 2017) <http://site.uit.no/jclos/2017/11/23/State-responsibility-for-unilateral-hydrocarbon-activities-in-disputed-maritime-areas-the-case-of-ghana-and-cote-divoire-and-its-implications/>.

93 Continental Shelf (Tunisia/Libyan Arab Jamahiriya) (Judgment) [1982] ICJ Rep 278, Dissenting Opinion of Judge Evensen, para 26.

94 As Churchill notes: ‘there is probably a rule of international law which prohibits States from exploiting seabed resources in disputed areas’. RR Churchill, ‘Joint Development Zones: International Legal Issues’ in Fox (n 52) 57; Churchill, RR and Lowe, VA, The Law of the Sea (3rd edn, Manchester University Press 1999) 192Google Scholar.

95 ‘… a claim to the equidistance line would be a good faith claim that is consistent with the LOSC and international law.’ Beckman, RC and Schofield, CH, ‘Defining EEZ Claims from Islands: A Potential South China Sea Change’ (2014) 29(2) IJMCL 193, 211–12Google Scholar; prior to ICJ proceedings, Danish and Dutch concessionaires had been operating within the equidistance limit following notification to Germany. Elferink, AG Oude, ‘North Sea Continental Shelf Cases’ in Wolfrum, R (ed), The Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law (Oxford University Press 2006, online edn) para 15Google Scholar <www.mpepil.com>; Canada had granted hydrocarbon permits on its side of the equidistance line in the Gulf of Maine. McDorman et al. (n 1) 91; Territorial and Maritime Dispute (Nicaragua v Colombia), Rejoinder of Colombia, para 8.58.

96 Ghana/Côte d'Ivoire (n 13), para 633.

97 Official Records of the Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea, Informal Single Negotiating Text, A/CONF.62/WP.8/Part II, art 61(3); Nordquist et al. (n 12) 806.

98 Murphy (n 6) 269.

99 ‘In the exclusive economic zone, the coastal State has: (a) sovereign rights for the purpose of exploring and exploiting, conserving and managing the natural resources, whether living or non-living, of the waters superjacent to the seabed and of the seabed and its subsoil, and with regard to other activities for the economic exploitation and exploration of the zone, such as the production of energy from the water, currents and winds; (b) jurisdiction as provided for in the relevant provisions of this Convention with regard to: (i) the establishment and use of artificial islands, installations and structures; 44 (ii) marine scientific research; (iii) the protection and preservation of the marine environment; (c) other rights and duties provided for in this Convention. 2. In exercising its rights and performing its duties under this Convention in the exclusive economic zone, the coastal State shall have due regard to the rights and duties of other States and shall act in a manner compatible with the provisions of this Convention. 3. The rights set out in this article with respect to the seabed and subsoil shall be exercised in accordance with Part VI.’ LOSC (n 2) art 56.

100 See section IIA4.

101 Award of the Arbitral Tribunal in the first stage of the proceedings between Eritrea and Yemen (Territorial Sovereignty and Scope of the Dispute) [1998] 22 RIAA 209, paras 258–317; Territorial and Maritime Dispute between Nicaragua and Honduras in the Caribbean Sea (Nicaragua v Honduras) (Judgment) [2007] ICJ Rep 659, paras 80, 237–46; Nicaragua v Colombia (n 5) paras 80, 217, 220 (case law referring to the conduct of the parties); China invoked its responsibilities with respect to maritime search and rescue, disaster prevention and mitigation, marine scientific research, meteorological observation, ecological environment conservation, navigation safety as well as fishery production service in order to justify its land reclamation activities but, eventually the Arbitral Tribunal found that those reclamation activities were unlawful. The Philippines v China Award (n 38) paras 865, 936, 1022–1023, 1149.

102 Buga, I, ‘Territorial Sovereignty Issues in Maritime Disputes: A Jurisdictional Dilemma for Law of the Sea Tribunals’ (2012) 27(1) IJMCL 59Google Scholar; on the concept of effectivités see Legal Status of the Eastern Greenland (Judgment) [1933] PCIJ Rep Series A/B No 53, 45–6, 63; Island of Palmas case (Netherlands/USA) [1928] 2 RIAA 829, 839–40; Nicaragua v Honduras (n 101) para 165; Frontier Dispute (Burkina Faso/Republic of Mali) (Judgment) [1986] ICJ Rep 554, para 63; Case concerning the Frontier Dispute (Benin/Niger) (Judgment) [2005] ICJ Rep 90, para 47.

103 ‘A single conglomeration of other purported factors and elements, the sum being greater than the value of its constituent parts. It derives its force from the “piling up” of evidence, designed to demonstrate that one party to a dispute has a greater interest in a particular offshore area than another … .’ Evans, MD, Relevant Circumstances and Maritime Delimitation (Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1989) 208Google Scholar; Anglo-French Continental Shelf Case (United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland/France) [1977] 18 RIAA 3, para 188.