We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 15 April 2021
Environmental changes, such as sea level rise and coastal erosion, have an increasing impact on coastlines worldwide. Unilaterally declared maritime limits are generally determined by reference to coastlines and they are only binding insofar as they conform to the applicable law. Bilateral maritime boundaries are not equally affected by changing coastal geography because, once established, they are binding on parties to the arrangement under the pacta sunt servanda and res judicata principles. Maritime delimitation generally produces geographically stable boundaries. In principle, these remain fixed notwithstanding changes to the coastal geography that generates maritime entitlements or the ecosystems central to national interests. Indeed, stability and predictability are among the objectives of maritime delimitation. However, legal stability can be achieved without geographic stability and the requirement of predictability may be unattainable in a new world of environmental uncertainty. After all, baselines and derived outer limits fluctuate to reflect changing coastal geography and the same is true of bilateral boundaries, unless and until otherwise agreed. States have concluded boundary agreements that refer to fluctuating concepts, such as the equidistance line, instead of fixed co-ordinates. Furthermore, the International Court of Justice has left a segment of a maritime boundary to fluctuate until otherwise agreed and a Chamber of the Court has addressed the possibility of establishing a boundary by reference to a fluid oceano-biological boundary in the marine environment. This suggests that maritime boundaries can fluctuate if established by reference to sufficiently clear and relevant limits in the natural environment.
This research is funded by the Icelandic Research Fund (grant number 196369-051).
1 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (adopted 10 December 1982, entered into force 16 November 1994) 1833 UNTS 3, (UNCLOS).
2 States can establish different types of baselines and closing lines and the width of each maritime zone is measured from those limits. See UNCLOS, Arts. 3, 5, 7, 9, 10, 47, 48, 57, 76.
3 See UNCLOS, Arts. 15, 74, 83.
4 International Law Association (ILA) Baselines Committee, ‘Conference Report Sofia 2012’ (2012), at 25.
5 ILA Committee on International Law and Sea Level Rise, ‘Sydney Conference’ (2018), at 11–12.
6 UNCLOS, Art. 7(2).
7 UNCLOS, Art. 76(8) and (9).
8 Frontier Dispute (Burkina Faso v. Republic of Mali) (Judgment), [1986] ICJ Rep. 554, para. 46.
9 Territorial and Maritime Dispute (Nicaragua v Colombia) (Application by Honduras for Permission to Intervene), [2011] ICJ Rep. 348, para. 67.
10 Bay of Bengal Maritime Boundary (Bangladesh v. India), (2014) 167 ILR 1, para. 216.
11 See ‘Sydney Conference’, supra note 5, at 16–19.
12 See, e.g., IPCC, ‘2019: Summary for Policymakers’, in Pörtner et al. (eds.), IPCC Special Report on the Ocean and Cryosphere in a Changing Climate (2019), available at www.ipcc.ch/srocc/.
13 J. Zalasiewicz, P. Crutzen, and W. Steffen, ‘The Anthropocene’, in Gradstein et al. (eds.), The Geologic Time Scale (2012), at 1033–40; Williams et al., ‘The Anthropocene Biosphere’, (2015) 2 The Anthropocene Review 196–219.
14 ILA, ‘Sydney Conference’, supra note 5, at 7, referencing Walker et al., ‘Formal Definition and Dating of the GSSP (Global Stratotype Section and Point) for the Base of the Holocene Using the Greenland NGRIP Ice Core, and Selected Auxiliary Records’, (2009) 24 Journal of Quaternary Science 3–17.
15 See UNCLOS, Arts. 312–316.
16 R. Churchill, ‘The 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea’, in Rothwell et al. (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of the Law of the Sea (2015), at 24, 43.
17 See, e.g., Asylum (Colombia/Peru) (Judgment), [1950] ICJ Rep. 266, at 277; Right of Passage over Indian Territory (Portugal v. India) (Merits), [1960] ICJ Rep. 6, at 40.
18 VCLT, Art. 31(3).
19 See South China Sea (Philippines v. China), (2016) 170 ILR 1 (Merits), para. 262.
20 UNCLOS, Art. 15.
21 Maritime Delimitation in the Area between Greenland and Jan Mayen (Denmark v. Norway) (Judgment), [1993] ICJ Rep. 38, para. 47.
22 See Maritime Delimitation in the Black Sea (Romania v. Ukraine) (Judgment), [2009] ICJ Rep. 61, paras. 115–16, 120–2.
23 Territorial and Maritime Dispute between Nicaragua and Honduras in the Caribbean Sea (Nicaragua v. Honduras) (Judgment), [2007] ICJ Rep. 659, para. 280.
24 This distinction is reflected in Land and Maritime Boundary between Cameroon and Nigeria (Cameroon v. Nigeria: Equatorial Guinea intervening) (Judgment), [2002] ICJ Rep. 303, para. 288; Nicaragua v. Honduras, ibid., para. 271; R. Churchill, ‘The Greenland-Jan Mayen Case and its Significance for the International Law of Maritime Boundary Delimitation’, (1994) 9 The International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law 1, at 18.
25 Maritime Delimitation and Territorial Questions between Qatar and Bahrain (Qatar v. Bahrain) (Merits), [2001] ICJ Rep. 40, para. 176.
26 J. Noyes, ‘The Territorial Sea and Contiguous Zone’, in Rothwell et al., supra note 16, at 91, 94.
27 Ibid., referencing the dissenting opinion of Judge McNair in Anglo-Norwegian Fisheries (United Kingdom/Norway)(Judgment), [1951] ICJ Rep. 116, at 160.
28 Yearbook of the ILC 1982, Vol. II, part 2, ‘Report of the Commission to the General Assembly on the work of the thirty-fourth session’ (3 May–23 July 1982) UN Doc. A/CN.4/SER.A/1982/Add.l (Part 2), at 60–1.
29 Maritime Delimitation in the Caribbean Sea and the Pacific Ocean (Costa Rica v. Nicaragua) and Land Boundary in the Northern Part of Isla Portillos (Costa Rica v. Nicaragua) (Judgment), [2018] ICJ Rep. 139, para. 92.
30 Nicaragua v. Honduras, supra note 23, para. 280 referencing Yearbook of the ILC, 1952, Vol. II, ‘Documents of the fourth session including the report of the Commission to the General Assembly’ (6 June 1952), UN Doc A/CN.4/SER.A/1952/Add.l., 38, para. 4
31 See T. Cottier, Equitable Principles of Maritime Boundary Delimitation: The Quest for Distributive Justice in International Law (2015), at 216; M. Nordquist (ed.), United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea 1982 – A Commentary (1993), vol. II, at 801, 954.
32 It is difficult to reach a general conclusion in this regard, see A. Soons, ‘The Effects of Sea Level Rise on Baselines and Outer Limits of Maritime Zones’, in T. Heidar (ed.), New Knowledge and Changing Circumstances in the Law of the Sea (2020), at 358, 367.
33 See, e.g., D. Caron, ‘When Law Makes Climate Change Worse: Rethinking the Law of Baselines in Light of a Rising Sea Level’, (1990) 17 (4) Ecology Law Quarterly 621; D. Freestone and J. Pethick, ‘Sea Level Rise and Maritime Boundaries: International Implications of Impacts and Responses’, in G. Blake (ed.), Maritime Boundaries: World Boundaries (1994), vol. V, at 73, 76; A. Soons, ‘The Effects of a Rising Sea Level on Maritime Limits and Boundaries’, (1990) 37 (2) Netherlands International Law Review 207, at 216. Only one scholar seems to cast any doubt on this theory, arguing that there is no automatic adjustment to maritime limits or related obligation, see K. Purcell, Geographical Change and the Law of the Sea (2020).
34 ‘Conference Report Sofia 2012’, supra note 4, at 31. This also applies to archipelagic baselines and straight baselines established under UNCLOS Art. 7(1) because such baselines are not afforded any degree of stability. Straight baselines at highly unstable coastlines remain effective under UNCLOS Art. 7(2), notwithstanding subsequent regression of the low-water line, but only until changed by the coastal state in accordance with UNCLOS.
35 Caron, supra note 33, at 634.
36 Award in the arbitration regarding the delimitation of the maritime boundary between Guyana and Suriname (Guyana v. Suriname), (2007) XXX RIAA 1, para. 310.
37 Ibid., para. 306.
38 Ibid., para. 310.
39 Ibid., para. 288.
40 Ibid., para. 133.
41 Ibid., para. 312, referencing Sovereignty over Certain Frontier Land (Belgium v. Netherlands) (Judgment), [1959] ICJ Rep. 209, at 229.
42 Guyana v. Suriname, supra note 36, para. 325.
43 See Denmark v. Norway, supra note 21, para. 47.
44 See, e.g., B. Magnússon, ‘Outer Continental Shelf Boundary Agreements’, (2013) 62(2) International and Comparative Law Quarterly 345, at 350.
45 Fisheries and economic interests were also taken into account in Delimitation of the Maritime Boundary in the Gulf of Maine Area (Canada/United States of America) (Judgment), [1984] ICJ Rep. 246 and Denmark v. Norway, supra note 21.
46 See B. Kwiatkowska, ‘Economic and Environmental Considerations in Maritime Boundary Delimitations’, in J. Charney and L. Alexander (eds.), International Maritime Boundaries, vol. I (1993), at 75–6.
47 See Freestone and Pethick, supra note 33, at 78.
48 J. Lisztwan, ‘Stability of maritime boundary agreements’, (2012) 37 Yale Journal of International Law 153, at 190.
49 Soons, supra note 33, at 227.
50 Convention between the Government of the French Republic (Wallis and Futuna) and the Government of the Kingdom of Tonga on the delimitation of economic zones (adopted 11 January 1980, entered into force 11 January 1980) 1183 UNTS 343.
51 For example, the 1799 border between Suriname and Berbice (a former colony where Guyana is now) ran along the west bank of the Corentyne River. See Guyana v. Suriname, supra note 36, para. 137.
52 See Extract from the Yearbook of the International Law Commission (ILC) 1966, Vol. II ‘Fifth Report on the Law of Treaties by Sir Humphrey Waldock, Special Rapporteur’ (15 November 1965–18 January 1966), UN Doc. A/CN.4/183 and Add.1-4, 44.
53 Canada and the US have different positions on this matter. See M. Byers, International Law and the Arctic (2013), at 59.
54 Great Britain/Russia: Limits of their Respective Possessions on the North-West Coast of America and the Navigation of the Pacific Ocean (adopted 16 February 1825) 75 Consolidated Treaty Series 95.
55 Convention between the Government of the French Republic and the Government of the Kingdom of Tonga, supra note 50.
56 R. W. McColl (ed.), Encyclopedia of World Geography, vol. I (2005), at 978.
57 Ibid., at 907.
58 Ibid., at 907, 978.
59 Treaty between Romania and Ukraine on the Romanian-Ukrainian State border regime, collaboration and mutual assistance on border matters (entered into force 27 May 2004) 2277 UNTS 3, Art. 1.
60 Territorial and Maritime Dispute (Nicaragua v. Colombia) (Judgment), [2012] ICJ Rep. 624, para. 114.
61 Bangladesh v. India, supra note 10, para. 339.
62 Extract from the Yearbook of the ILC: 2009, Vol. I ‘Summary record of the 3016th meeting’ (7 July 2009), UN Doc. A/CN.4/3016, paras. 24–5.
63 See, e.g., Maritime Delimitation in the Black Sea, supra note 22, paras. 120, 155.
64 K. B. Lee, ‘The Demise of Equitable Principles and the Rise of Relevant Circumstances in Maritime Boundary Delimitation’, submitted for the Degree of PhD School of Law, The University of Edinburgh 2012, at 14.
65 See, e.g., North Sea Continental Shelf (Federal Republic of Germany/Netherlands) (Federal Republic of Germany/Denmark) (Judgment), [1969] ICJ Rep. 3, para. 96; Cameroon v. Nigeria: Equatorial Guinea intervening, supra note 24, para. 295; Delimitation of the Exclusive Economic Zone and the Continental Shelf (Barbados v. Trinidad and Tobago) (Arbitral Award), [2006] RIAA vol. XXVII, 147, para. 288.
66 See, e.g., Cameroon v. Nigeria: Equatorial Guinea intervening, supra note 24, para. 295; Anglo-French Continental Shelf (United Kingdom/France), (1977) XVIII RIAA 3, para. 84; North Sea Continental Shelf, ibid., para. 96.
67 Continental Shelf (Libyan Arab Jamahiriya/Malta) (Judgment), [1985] ICJ Rep. 13, para. 50 referencing North Sea Continental Shelf, ibid., at 54, para. 101(D)(2).
68 Delimitation of the Maritime Boundary in the Gulf of Maine Area, supra note 45, para. 56.
69 Barbados v. Trinidad and Tobago, supra note 65, para. 228.
70 Bangladesh v. India, supra note 10, at 112. See Bangladesh’s Memorial, para. 6.83.
71 Bangladesh v. India, ibid., paras. 193, 200–3.
72 See Maritime Delimitation in the Black Sea, supra note 22, paras. 149, 185; Libya/Malta, supra note 67, para. 64; Nicaragua v. Honduras, supra note 23, paras. 202, 302 et seq.; Nicaragua v. Colombia, supra note 60, para. 202; Delimitation in the Gulf of Maine Area, supra note 45, paras. 201, 222.
73 Bangladesh v. India, supra note 10, para. 263.
74 Qatar v. Bahrain, supra note 25, paras. 194–5, 219.
75 Ibid., declaration of Judge Vereshchetin, at 184.
76 Nicaragua v. Honduras, supra note 23, para. 294.
77 Ibid., paras. 277, 280.
78 Ibid., paras. 311, 320.
79 Ibid., para. 307.
80 Ibid., para. 309.
81 Ibid., para. 309.
82 Ibid., para. 321(4).
83 Ibid., para. 311.
84 Ibid., para. 311 referencing Delimitation of the maritime boundary between Guinea and Guinea-Bissau (Guinea/Guinea-Bissau), (1985) XIX RIAA 149.
85 Costa Rica v. Nicaragua, supra note 29, para. 104.
86 Ibid.
87 Ibid., para. 100.
88 Denmark v. Norway, supra note 21, para. 78, Delimitation in the Gulf of Maine Area, supra note 45, para. 237. See also V. Prescott and C. Schofield, The Maritime Political Boundaries of the World (2005), at 239–41; Kwiatkowska, supra note 46, at 75.
89 Denmark v. Norway, supra note 21, para. 78.
90 Ibid.
91 Delimitation in the Gulf of Maine Area, supra note 45, paras. 50–1.
92 Ibid., para. 50.
93 Ibid., para. 51.
94 Ibid., para. 48.
95 Ibid., para. 54.
96 Ibid.
97 Ibid.
98 Ibid., para. 5.
99 Delimitation in the Gulf of Maine Area, supra note 45. Oral Arguments - Minutes of the Public Sittings held at the Peace Palace, The Hague, on 29 January 1982 and from 2 to 19 April 1984, Evidence of Dr Edwards, witness for the United States, at 399, 434–5.
100 Delimitation in the Gulf of Maine Area, supra note 45, para. 56.
101 Ibid., para. 54.
102 See ibid., para. 243; Qatar v. Bahrain, supra note 25, paras. 173–4; and Nicaragua v. Honduras, supra note 23, at 739–40.
103 Cottier, supra note 31, at 218 and Denmark v. Norway, supra note 21, at 56–7.
104 Delimitation in the Gulf of Maine Area, supra note 45, para. 194.
105 The Treaty between Australia and Papua New Guinea concerning Sovereignty and Maritime Boundaries in the Torres Strait (adopted 18 December 1978, entered into force 15 February 1985) 1429 UNTS 207 is an example of a treaty establishing non-coincident exclusive economic zone and continental shelf boundaries.
106 Temple of Preah Vihear (Cambodia v. Thailand) (Merits), [1962] ICJ Rep. 6, at 34.
107 Extract from the Yearbook of the ILC, 1966, Vol. II ‘Draft articles on the law of treaties: text as finally adopted by the Commission on 18 July 1966 (reproduced at para. 38 of document A/6309/Rev.1)’ (18 July 1966), UN Doc. A/CN.4/190 260, para. 13.
108 Extract from the Yearbook of the ILC, 1966, Vol. I(1) ‘Summary record of the 835th meeting’ (20 January 1966), UN Doc. A/CN.4/SR.835, at 86.
109 T. Giegerich, ‘Article 62. Fundamental Change of Circumstances’, in O. Dörr and K. Schmalenbach (eds.), Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties: A Commentary (2012), at 1067, 1090.
110 See Giegerich, ibid., at 1068–9.
111 L. Sohn and J. Noyes, Cases and Materials on the Law of the Sea (2004), at 235, referencing R. Hodgson and R. Smith, ‘The Informal Single Negotiating Text (Committee II): A Geographical Perspective’, (1976) 3 Ocean Development and International Law 225, at 234.
112 M. Hudson, ‘The First Conference for the Codification of International Law’, 24 AJIL 447, at 457.
113 ILC ‘Report of the ILC on the work of its 34th session’ (3 May–23 July 1982), UN Doc. A/CN.4/SER.A/1982/Add.l (Part 2), at 61.
114 Aegean Sea Continental Shelf (Greece v. Turkey) (Jurisdiction), [1978] ICJ Rep. 3, para. 85.
115 ‘Fifth Report on the Law of Treaties by Sir Humphrey Waldock, Special Rapporteur’, supra note 52, at 44.
116 Extract from the Yearbook of the ILC, 1963, Vol. I ‘Summary Record of the 697th Meeting’ (11 June 1963), UN Doc. A/CN.4/SR.697, at 157.
117 Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States (adopted 26 December 1933, entered into force 26 December 1934) 165 League of Nations Treaty Series 19, Art. 1.
118 J. Bowden, ‘The Texas-New Mexico Boundary Dispute along the Rio Grande’, (1959) 63 The Southwestern Historical Quarterly 225.
119 The State of New Mexico v. The State of Texas (United States Supreme Court 1927) United States Reports, CCLXXV, at 279.
120 Bowden, supra note 118, at 236–7.
121 Convention between the United States of America and Mexico concerning the Chamizal Dispute (adopted in Mexico City 29 August 1963, entered into force 14 January 1964), Arts. 1–3.
122 Bangladesh v. India, supra note 10, para. 160.
123 Ibid., paras. 104–5, see also para. 149.
124 Ibid., para. 165.
125 Ibid., para. 104 referencing Letter from the Secretary to the Government of Pakistan to the Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of External Affairs, No. 1(1).3/10/50, 7 February 1951, India’s Rejoinder, Annex RJ-1. India’s reply confirmed that the boundary ‘should be a fluid one’. See Copy of Express Letter from Foreign, New Delhi to Foreign, Karachi, No. F. 20/50- Pak.III, 13 March 1951, India’s Rejoinder, Annex RJ-2.
126 Y. Tanaka, The International Law of the Sea (2015), at 238, referencing L. Juda, ‘Considerations in Developing a Functional Approach to the Governance of Large Marine Ecosystems’, (1999) 30 ODIL 93.
127 Ibid.
128 A. Østhagen, ‘Maritime boundary disputes: What are they and why do they matter?’, (2020) 120 Marine Policy 104, at 110.
129 Maxwell et al., ‘Mobile protected areas for biodiversity on the high seas’, (2020) 367(6475) Science (American Association for the Advancement of Science) 252, at 252.
130 See Arbitral Award Made by the King of Spain on 23 December 1906 (Honduras v. Nicaragua), [1960] ICJ Rep. 192, at 216.
131 See Nicaragua v. Honduras, supra note 23, para. 310.
132 See UNCLOS, Art. 5.
133 See UNCLOS, Art. 16(1).
134 C. Schofield, ‘Holding back the waves? sea level rise and maritime claims’, in O.Ruppel, C. Roschmann and K. R. Schlichting (eds.), Climate Change: International Law and Global Governance: Legal Responses and Global Responsibility (2013), vol. I, at 593, 605.
135 ‘Admiralty Notices to Mariners’, UK Hydrographic Office, available at www.admiralty.co.uk/maritime-safety-information/admiralty-notices-to-mariners.
136 See, e.g., The Agreement between the Republic of Cyprus and the Arab Republic of Egypt on the delimitation of the exclusive economic zone (adopted 17 February 2003, entered into force 7 March 2004) 2488 UNTS 3.
137 See ‘Sydney Conference’, supra note 5, at 7.
138 United Nations Conference on the Law of Treaties: ‘First session: Summary records of the plenary meetings and of the meetings of the Committee of the Whole’ (26 March–24 May 1968), UN Doc. A/CONF.39/11, 150, para. 56.
139 Nicaragua v. Honduras, supra note 23, para. 311.
140 Costa Rica v. Nicaragua, supra note 29, para. 104.
141 The Indus Waters Kishenganga Arbitration (India/Pakistan), (2013) 150 ILR 311, para. 100.
142 Ibid., para. 98.
143 Barbados v. Trinidad and Tobago, supra note 65, para. 244.
144 See Delimitation in the Gulf of Maine Area, supra note 45, para. 194.
145 Nicaragua v. Honduras, supra note 23, para. 311; Costa Rica v. Nicaragua, supra note 29, para. 104.
146 C. Schofield, ‘Ever More Lines in the Sea: Advances in the Spatial Governance of Maine Space’, in J. Kraska and C. Esposito (eds.), Ocean Law and Policy: Twenty Years of Development under UNCLOS (2016), at 387, 399.
147 C. Schofield, ‘Parting the Waves: Claims to Maritime Jurisdiction and the Division of Ocean Space’, (2012) 1 Penn State Journal of Law and International Affairs 40, at 48.
