Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Role of Mineral Resources in Maritime Delimitation

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Joint Development of Hydrocarbon Deposits in the Law of the Sea

Part of the book series: Hamburg Studies on Maritime Affairs ((HAMBURG,volume 30))

  • 1004 Accesses

Abstract

The principle that has been widely accepted and acknowledged is that maritime delimitation shall be determined by agreement, as opposed to unilateral delimitation.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
eBook
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Article 6(1) of the 1958 Convention on the Continental Shelf and Articles 74(1) and 83(1) of UNCLOS. Also see Delimitation of the Maritime Boundary in the Gulf of Maine Area, supra note 60 in Chap. 3, para. 112.

  2. 2.

    Gidel, supra note 52 in Chap. 3, pp. 16–17. Also see Georges Scelle, Plateau Continental et Droit International (A. Pedone: Paris, 1955), pp. 12–18, 30–32.

  3. 3.

    North Sea Continental Shelf cases, supra note 46 in Chap. 3, paras. 101(C)(1), 47, 69–72, 77, 81, 82–83. Also see Delimitation of the Maritime Boundary in the Gulf of Maine Area, supra note 60 in Chap. 3, paras. 113–115, 124–125, 159; and Continental Shelf (Libya/Malta), supra note 60 in Chap. 3, para. 46. On the judgment of the ICJ in the North Sea cases see L.F.E Goldie, “The North Sea continental shelf case. A ray of hope for the International Court?”, in: 6–2 New York Law Forum (1970), pp. 327–377; Charles Vallée, Le Plateau Continental dans le Droit Positif Actuel (A. Pedone: Paris, 1971), pp. 253–292; Prosper Weil, Perspectives du Droit de la délimitation maritime (Pedone: Paris, 1988), pp. 155–169; Douglas M. Johnston, The Theory and History of Ocean Boundary-Making (McGill-Queen’s University Press: Kingston, Montreal, 1988), pp. 165–178; Donat Pharan, “International decisions. Affaire du plateau continental de la Mer du Nord (1969)”, in: The Continental Shelf and the Exclusive Economic Zone/Le Plateau Continental et la Zone Économique Exclusive edited by Donat Pharand and Umbero Leanza (Martinus Nijhoff Publishers: Dordrecht, Boston, London, 1993), pp. 95–104; Tanja, supra note 60 in Chap. 3, pp. 62–80, 119–153; Oude Elferink, supra note 60 in Chap. 3, pp. 22–25, 47–55, 171; Brown, supra note 26 in Chap. 3, pp. 164–165, 172–184; Ibid, supra note 60 in Chap. 3, pp. 49–87; Nelson, supra note 60 in Chap. 3, p. 838; Kwiatkowska, supra note 59 in Chap. 3, pp. 254–255; Evans, supra note 15 in Chap. 7, pp. 13–27. A. G. Oude Elferink, The Delimitation of the Continental Shelf between Denmark, Germany and the Netherlands. Arguing Law, Practicing Politics? (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2013), pp. 161–341.

  4. 4.

    North Sea Continental Shelf cases, supra note 46 in Chap. 3, para. 90.

  5. 5.

    Ibid, paras. 43–44, 46; Anglo-French Continental Shelf Arbitration (1977–1978), in: 18 International Legal Materials 397, paras. 75–80, 100.

  6. 6.

    Anglo-French Continental Shelf Arbitration, ibid, para. 63: “The fact that Article 6 is not applicable as between the Parties to the extent that it is excluded by the French reservations does not mean that there are no legal rules to govern the delimitation of the boundary in areas where the reservation operates. On the contrary, as the International Court of Justice observed in the North Continental Shelf cases, “there are still rules and principles of law to be applied” (I.C.J. Reports 1969, paragraph 83); and these are the rules and principles governing delimitation of the continental shelf in general international law.”

  7. 7.

    Ibid, para. 67: “Thus, in invoking the application of Article 6, paragraph 1, the United Kingdom claims that this paragraph places an onus of proof upon the French Republic to show the existence of any “special circumstance” on which it relies and to show that these circumstances justify a boundary other than the median line as defined by the paragraph. The French Republic, on the other hand, in contesting the applicability of Article 6 and invoking the rules of customary law, claims the governing principle to be that the delimitation must be equitable and the equidistance principle to be merely one of numerous “methods” which may in certain circumstances be used to produce an equitable delimitation. Neither of these views of equidistance “principle” or “method” however, appears to the Court to place it in its true perspective.” Also see Churchill/Lowe, supra note 68 in Chap. 2, p. 185.

  8. 8.

    Anglo-French Continental Shelf Arbitration supra note 5, para. 68.

  9. 9.

    Ibid, para. 70. The Arbitral Tribunal also referred that it “took the view that the equidistance principle itself is not inherent in the doctrine of the continental shelf nor a logical necessity of that doctrine derived from any fundamental principle of proximity or adjacency; and it also emphasised the doubts voiced in the International Law Commission as to the possibility that, in certain cases, the geographical configuration of the coast would render a boundary drawn on the basis of equidistance inequitable. So it was that the Court was led to conclude that in customary law the basic principle of delimitation is that, failing agreement, the boundary must be determined in accordance with equitable principles.” (para. 82) “These observations, to which the present Court of Arbitration in general subscribes, indicate that the validity of the equidistance method, or of any other method, as a means of achieving an equitable delimitation of the continental shelf is always relative to the particular geographical situation. In short, whether under customary law or Article 6, it is never a question either of complete or of no freedom of choice as to method; for the appropriateness—the equitable character—of the method is always a function of the particular geographical situation.” (para. 84) “In short, this Court considers that the appropriateness of the equidistance method or any other method for the purpose of effecting an equitable delimitation is a function or reflection of the geographical and other relevant circumstances of each particular case” (para. 97).

  10. 10.

    Ibid, para. 238–245.

  11. 11.

    Ibid, para. 249.

  12. 12.

    Brown, supra note 26 in Chap. 3, p. 179.

  13. 13.

    Continental Shelf (Tunisia/Libya), supra note 10 in Chap. 3, paras. 45–48, 70–71. On the Court’s decision see Robert Kolb, Case Law on Equitable Maritime Delimitation/Jurisprudence sur les Délimitations Maritimes Selon L’Équeté. Digest and Commentaries/Répertoire et commentaries, edited by Vaughan Lowe (Martinus Nijhoff Publishers: The Hague, London, New York, 2003), pp. 40–41, 166–170; Jean-Pierre Queneudec, “Note sur l’arret de la cour internationale de justice relatif a la délimitation du plateau continental entre la Tunisie et la Libye”, in: 27 Annuaire Français de Droit International (1981), pp. 203–212; Mark B. Feldman, “The Tunisian-Libya continental shelf case: geographic justice or judicial compromise?”, in: 77-2 American Journal of International Law (April: 1983), pp. 219–238; Emmanuel Decaux, “L’arrêt de la Cour Internationale de Justice dans l’affaire du plateau continental (Tunisie/Libye)”, in: 28 Annuaire Français de Droit International (1982), pp. 357–391; Ibid, “L’arrêt de la C.I.J. sur la requête a fin d’intervention de Malte, dans l’affaire du plateau continental entre la Tunisie et la Libye (14 avril 1981)”, in: 27 Annuaire Français de Droit International (1981), pp. 177–202; Keith Highet, “Whatever became of natural prolongation?”, in: Rights to Oceanic Resources. Deciding and Drawing Maritime Boundaries, edited by Dorinda G. Dallmeyer and Louis Devorsey, Jr. (Martinus Nijhoff Publishers: Dordrecht, Boston, London, 1989), pp. 87–100; Nelson, supra note 60 in Chap. 3, pp. 843–846. Tanja, supra note 60 in Chap. 3, pp. 180–206; Oude Elferink, supra note 60 in Chap. 3, pp. 64–73; Brown, supra note 60 in Chap. 3, pp. 138–165. Also see Continental Shelf (Libya/Malta), supra note 60 in Chap. 3, paras. 45–46, 63.

  14. 14.

    Continental Shelf (Tunisia/Libya), supra note 10 in Chap. 3, paras. 70–72. Also see North Sea Continental Shelf cases, supra note 46 in Chap. 3, paras. 91–93; Continental Shelf (Libya/Malta), supra note 60 in Chap. 3, paras. 45, 48, 63; Maritime Delimitation in the Area between Greenland and Jan Mayen, supra note 33 in Chap. 4, para. 57; Case Concerning Maritime Delimitation in the Black Sea, supra note 53 in Chap. 3, paras. 111, 155.

  15. 15.

    Continental Shelf (Tunisia/Libya), ibid, para. 132. Also see Delimitation of the Maritime Boundary in the Gulf of Maine Area, supra note 60 in Chap. 3, para. 59; Continental Shelf (Libya/Malta), ibid, para. 65; Maritime Delimitation in the Area between Greenland and Jan Mayen, ibid, paras. 55–56.

  16. 16.

    Brown, supra note 26 in Chap. 3, p. 181.

  17. 17.

    See Delimitation of the Maritime Boundary in the Gulf of Maine Area, supra note 60 in Chap. 3, para. 112(2). Also see Land and Maritime Boundary between Cameroon and Nigeria, supra note 83 in Chap. 3, para. 294: “The Court is bound to stress in this connection that delimiting with a concern to achieving an equitable result, as required by current international law, is not the same as delimiting in equity. The Court's jurisprudence shows that, in disputes relating to maritime delimitation, equity is not a method of delimitation, but solely an aim that should be borne in mind in effecting the delimitation.”

  18. 18.

    Delimitation of the Maritime Boundary in the Gulf of Maine Area, ibid, paras. 124, 157–158, 162–163.

  19. 19.

    Case concerning the delimitation of the maritime boundary between Guinea and Guinea-Bissau, Arbitral Award of 14 February 1985, para. 89.

  20. 20.

    Delimitation of Maritime Areas between Canada und the French Republic (St. Pierre et Miquelon), 31 International Legal Materials (1992), para. 38.

  21. 21.

    Continental Shelf (Libya/Malta), supra note 60 in Chap. 3, paras. 45, 73.

  22. 22.

    Maritime Delimitation in the Area between Greenland and Jan Mayen, supra note 33 in Chap. 4, para. 48. For a critical view of the Court’s position see R.R. Churchill, “The Greenland—Jan Mayen case and its significance for the international law of maritime boundary delimitation”, in: 9-1 International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law (1994), p. 17.

  23. 23.

    Territorial and Maritime Dispute (Nicaragua v. Colombia) 2012, supra note 53 in Chap. 3, para. 139; Maritime Delimitation and Territorial Questions between Qatar and Bahrain, supra note 26 in Chap. 6, paras. 167, 230; Case Concerning Maritime Delimitation in the Black Sea, supra note 53 in Chap. 3, para. 115–122. Also see The Eritrea—Yemen Arbitration (second phase), supra note 23 in Chap. 4, paras. 131–132; Barbados/Trinidad and Tobago, Award of the Arbitral Tribunal, 11 April 2006, paras. 242, 306 [online: http://www.pca-cpa.org/upload/files/Final%20Award.pdf (accessed on August 2013)]; Guyana/Suriname, supra note 25 in Chap. 2, paras. 342, 335.

  24. 24.

    Territorial and Maritime Dispute (Nicaragua v. Colombia) 2012, ibid, para. 137.

  25. 25.

    Articles 74, 83 and 121 of UNCLOS. See Territorial and Maritime Dispute (Nicaragua v. Colombia) 2012, ibid, para. 138.

  26. 26.

    Territorial and Maritime Dispute between Nicaragua and Honduras in the Caribbean Sea (Nicaragua v. Honduras), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 2007, paras. 270–272.

  27. 27.

    Land and Maritime Boundary between Cameroon and Nigeria, supra note 83 in Chap. 3, paras. 285, 288, 290.

  28. 28.

    Maritime Delimitation in the Area between Greenland and Jan Mayen, supra note 33 in Chap. 4, para. 55: “It is thus apparent that special circumstances are those circumstances which might modify the result produced by an unqualified application of the equidistance principle. General international law, as it has developed through the case-law of the Court and arbitral jurisprudence, arid through the work of the third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea, has employed the concept of 'relevant circumstances. This concept can be described as a fact necessary to be taken into account in the delimitation process.”

  29. 29.

    See Continental Shelf (Libya/Malta), supra note 60 in Chap. 3, paras. 41–43, 56–57; Territorial and Maritime Dispute between Nicaragua and Honduras in the Caribbean Sea, supra note 26, para. 272. Also see Jean-Pierre Quéneudec, “L’affaire de la délimitation du plateau continental entre la France et le Royaume-Uni”, in: 83 Revue Générale de Droit International Public (1979), pp. 53–103; Edward Duncan Brown, “The Anglo-French continental shelf case”, in: 19 San Diego Law Review (1979), pp. 461–530; D.M. McRae, “Delimitation of the continental shelf between the United Kingdom and France: the channel arbitration”, in: 15 Canadian Yearbook of International Law (1977), pp. 173–197; Maurice Mendelson, “On the quasi normative effect of maritime boundary agreements”, in: Liber Amicorum Judge Shigeru Oda, vol. 2, edited by Nisuke Ando, Edward McWhinney and Rüdiger Wolfrum (Kluwer Law International: The Hague, London, New York, 2002), pp. 1069–1086; Bernard H. Oxman, “Political, strategic, and historical considerations”, in: International Maritime Boundaries, vol. 1, supra note 42 in Chap. 2, pp. 3–40; Tanaka, supra note 23 in Chap. 3, p. 191; Blecher, supra note 59 in Chap. 3, pp. 65–68; Weil, supra note 13, pp. 112–114; Charney, supra note 136, p. 585; Brown, supra note 60 in Chap. 3, pp. 262–278; Johnston, supra note 13, pp. 200–210; Andrassy, supra note 46 in Chap. 3, pp. 91–107.

  30. 30.

    “The delimitation of [the exclusive economic zone/the continental shelf] between States with opposite and adjacent coasts shall be effected by agreement on the basis of international law, as referred to in Article 38 of the Statute of the International Court of Justice, in order to achieve an equitable solution.”

  31. 31.

    Churchill/Lowe, supra note 68 in Chap. 2, p. 191.

  32. 32.

    For a critical view see Malcom D. Evans, “Maritime boundary delimitation: where do we go from here?”, in: The Law of the Sea: Progress and Prospects, edited by David Freestone, Richard Barnes and David Ong (Oxford University Press: Oxford, 2006), pp. 137–160.

  33. 33.

    Bangladesh/Myanmar, supra note 71 in Chap. 3, paras. 225–234.

  34. 34.

    Ibid, para 235. Also see Territorial and Maritime Dispute between Nicaragua and Honduras in the Caribbean Sea, supra note 26, paras. 280–281. Bangladesh/India, supra note 69 in Chap. 6, paras. 339–346.

  35. 35.

    Territorial and Maritime Dispute (Nicaragua v. Colombia) 2012, supra note 53  in Chap. 3, paras. 141, 155, 167, 177, 184, 190, 191.

  36. 36.

    Ibid, paras. 192–194, 242, 247.

  37. 37.

    North Sea Continental Shelf cases, supra note 46 in Chap. 3, paras. 82, 91, 95, 96, 101(D)(1); Delimitation of the Maritime Boundary in the Gulf of Maine Area, supra note 60 in Chap. 3, paras. 205–206, 211–213, 215; Bangladesh/Myanmar, supra note 71 in Chap. 3, paras. 292, 297; Land and Maritime Boundary between Cameroon and Nigeria, supra note 83 in Chap. 3, paras. 295–297; Territorial and Maritime Dispute (Nicaragua v. Colombia) 2012, supra note 53 in Chap. 3, para. 229.

  38. 38.

    Anglo-French Continental Shelf Arbitration, supra note 5, paras. 243–251; Continental Shelf (Tunisia/Libya), supra note 10 in Chap. 3, paras. 120, 128–129; Continental Shelf (Libya/Malta), supra note 60 in Chap. 3, paras. 64, 68–69, Case Concerning Maritime Delimitation in the Black Sea, supra note 53 in Chap. 3, para. 149, 187–188; The Eritrea—Yemen Arbitration (second phase), supra note 23 in Chap. 4, paras. 139, 147, 150–151, 165–168; Delimitation of the Maritime Boundary in the Gulf of Maine Area, supra note 60 in Chap. 3, para. 222; Land and Maritime Boundary between Cameroon and Nigeria, supra note 83 in Chap. 3, para. 299; Maritime Delimitation and Territorial Questions between Qatar and Bahrain, supra note 26 in Chap. 6, paras. 219, 222; Territorial and Maritime Dispute between Nicaragua and Honduras in the Caribbean Sea, supra note 26, paras. 304–305; Bangladesh/Myanmar, supra note 71 in Chap. 3, paras. 316–319.

  39. 39.

    North Sea Continental Shelf cases, supra note 46 in Chap. 3, para. 98, 101(D)(3); Continental Shelf (Tunisia/Libya), supra note 10 in Chap. 3, paras. 103–105, 108, 130–131, 133B(5); Continental Shelf (Libya/Malta), supra note 60 in Chap. 3, paras. 56–58, 74–75, 78; Maritime Delimitation in the Area between Greenland and Jan Mayen, supra note 33 in Chap. 4, paras. 65–69; Delimitation of the Maritime Boundary in the Gulf of Maine Area, supra note 60 in Chap. 3, para. 218, Delimitation of Maritime Areas between Canada und the French Republic (St. Pierre et Miquelon), supra note 20, paras. 33, 93; Land and Maritime Boundary between Cameroon and Nigeria, supra note 83 in Chap. 3, para. 301; Barbados/Trinidad and Tobago, supra 23, paras. 337–338, 376–379; Guyana/Suriname, supra note 25 in Chap. 2, para. 393; Case Concerning Maritime Delimitation in the Black Sea, supra note 53 in Chap. 3, para. 213.

  40. 40.

    The Article 12(1) of the 1958 Convention on the Territorial Sea and Contiguous Zone reads: “Where the coasts of two States are opposite or adjacent to each other, neither of the two States is entitled, failing agreement between them to the contrary, to extend its territorial sea beyond the median line every point of which is equidistant from the nearest points on the baselines from which the breadth of the territorial seas of each of the two States is measured. The above provision does not apply, however, where it is necessary by reason of historic title or other special circumstances to delimit the territorial seas of the two States in a way which is at variance therewith.”

  41. 41.

    Maritime Delimitation in the Area between Greenland and Jan Mayen, supra note 33 in Chap. 4, paras. 54–56. Also see Anglo-French Continental Shelf Arbitration, supra note 5, para. 148.

  42. 42.

    The Memorandum on the Regime of the High Seas, prepared by the Secretariat of the United Nations (A/CN.4/32), done on 14 July 1950, published in Yearbook of the International Law Commission, 1950, vol. 2, 112, paras. 337–338 [online: http://untreaty.un.org/ilc/documentation/french/a_cn4_32.pdf (accessed on August 2013)]. On customary law applicable to rivers see Joseph W. Dellapenna, “The customary international law of transboundary fresh waters”, in: Exploitation of Natural Resources in the 21st Century, edited by Malagosia Fitzmaurice and Milena Szuniewicz (Kluwer Law International: The Hague, London, New York, 2003), pp. 153–188; Eyal Benvenisti, “Collective action in the utilization of shared freshwater: the challenges of international water resources law”, in: 90 American Journal of International Law (1996), pp. 384–415; Ann Berkley Rodgers and Albert E. Utton, “The Ixtapa draft agreement relating to the use of transboundary groundwaters”, in: 25 Natural Resources Journal (July 1985), pp. 713–722.

  43. 43.

    Lagoni, supra note 63 in Chap. 2, p. 240; Barberis, supra note 63 in Chap. 2, pp. 49–50; Utton, supra note 70 in Chap. 2, p. 68. Also see William E. Kenworthy, “Joint development of international waters”, in: 54-3 American Journal of International Law (July 1960), pp. 592–602.

  44. 44.

    Mouton, supra note 21 in Chap. 2, p. 421.

  45. 45.

    Vuilleimier, supra note 62 in Chap. 2, p. 283a.

  46. 46.

    Mouton, supra note 21 in Chap. 2, p. 421.

  47. 47.

    Separate Opinion of Judge Jessup, paras. 67, 72, North Sea Continental Shelf cases, supra note 46 in Chap. 3.

  48. 48.

    North Sea Continental Shelf cases, ibid, para. 101(D).

  49. 49.

    Continental Shelf (Libya/Malta), supra note 60 in Chap. 3, para. 50.

  50. 50.

    North Sea Continental Shelf cases, supra note 46 in Chap. 3, para. 93.

  51. 51.

    Ibid, para. 97.

  52. 52.

    Separate Opinion of Judge Jessup, paras. 78, 83, ibid.

  53. 53.

    Ibid, paras. 17–18. Also see Case Concerning Maritime Delimitation in the Black Sea, supra note 53 in Chap. 3, para. 111.

  54. 54.

    Case Concerning Maritime Delimitation in the Black Sea, supra note 53 in Chap. 3, paras. 189–198; Delimitation of the Maritime Boundary in the Gulf of Maine Area, supra note 60 in Chap. 3, paras. 148–150; Continental Shelf (Tunisia/Libya), supra note 10 in Chap. 3, paras. 107, 117–119. Also see Guyana/Suriname, supra note 25 in Chap. 2, para. 390; Barbados/Trinidad and Tobago, supra 23, para. 364. The Arbitral Tribunal in the Guinea/Guinea Bissau case declined to take into consideration an oil concession granted by Portugal supra note 19, p. 281, para. 63.

  55. 55.

    Land and Maritime Boundary between Cameroon and Nigeria, supra note 83 in Chap. 3, paras. 303–304.

  56. 56.

    Delimitation of the Maritime Boundary in the Gulf of Maine Area, supra note 60 in Chap. 3, paras. 126, 149–152.

  57. 57.

    Continental Shelf (Libya/Malta), supra note 60 in Chap. 3, paras. 24–25.

  58. 58.

    Supra note 20, para. 89.

  59. 59.

    The Eritrea—Yemen Arbitration (first phase), supra note 103 in Chap. 3, paras. 437–439. Also see The Eritrea—Yemen Arbitration (second phase), supra note 226, paras. 86, 132; Separate Opinion of Judge Jessup, para. 81, North Sea Continental Shelf cases, supra note 46 in Chap. 3; Continental Shelf (Tunisia/Libya), supra note 10 in Chap. 3, paras. 117–118, 125. On the Eritrea/Yemen Arbitration see Barbara Kwiatkowska, “The Eritrea-Yemen Arbitration: landmark progress in the acquisition of territorial sovereignty and equitable maritime boundary delimitation”, in: 32-1 Ocean Development and International Law (2001), pp. 1–25; Ibid,“The contribution of the 2002 (Cameroon v. Nigeria: Equatorial Guinea intervening) land and maritime boundary between Cameroon and Nigeria judgment of the International Court of justice to equitable maritime boundary delimitation”, in: 17 The Hague Yearbook of International Law (2004), pp. 95–135; Yoshifumi Tanaka, “Reflections on the Eritrea/Yemen Arbitration of 17 December 1999 (second phase: maritime delimitation)”, in: 48 Netherlands International Law Review (2001), pp. 197–225; Ibid, “Reflections on maritime delimitation in the Cameroon/Nigeria case”, in: 53 International and Comparative Law Quarterly (2004), pp. 369–406; Nuno Marques Antunes, “The 1999 Eritrea-Yemen maritime delimitation award and the development of international law”, in: Estudos em Direito Internacional Público (Almedina: Coimbra, 2004), pp. 225–268; Ibid, “The pending maritime delimitation in the Cameroon v. Nigeria case: a piece in the jigsaw puzzle of the Gulf of Guinea”, in: 15-2 International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law (2000), pp. 163–192; Maurice Mendelson, “The Cameroon-Nigeria case in the ICJ: some territorial sovereignty and boundary delimitation issues”, in: 75 British Yearbook of International Law (2004), pp. 223–247; Prescott/Schofield, supra note 51 in Chap. 6, pp. 234–235.

  60. 60.

    Exclusive Economic Zone Co-operation Treaty signed between the Republic of Guyana and the State of Barbados, done at London on 2 December 2003, reproduced in: International Maritime Boundaries, vol. 5, supra note 13 in Chap. 4, pp. 3587–3594.

  61. 61.

    Barbados/Trinidad and Tobago, supra 23, para. 349. Also see Article 34 of the Vienna Convention.

  62. 62.

    Territorial and Maritime Dispute (Nicaragua v. Colombia) 2012, supra note 53 in Chap. 3, para. 163.

  63. 63.

    Case Concerning Maritime Delimitation in the Black Sea, supra note 53 in Chap. 3, paras. 189–198.

  64. 64.

    North Sea Continental Shelf cases, supra note 46 in Chap. 3, paras. 94, 97, 99, 101(C)(2), (D)(2).

  65. 65.

    Separate Opinion of Judge Jessup, paras. 78, 83, North Sea Continental Shelf cases, supra note 46 in Chap. 3. Also see Dissenting Opinion of Vice-President Weeramantry, paras. 108–113, KasikililSedudu Island (Botswana/Namibia) Judgment, I.C.J. Report 1999, p. 1045.

  66. 66.

    Agreement between the Great Libyan Arab Socialist People’s Jamahariya and the Republic of Tunisia to Implement the Judgment of the International Court of Justice in the Tunisia/Libya Continental Shelf Case, done at Benghazi on 8 August 1988, reproduced in: International Maritime Boundaries, vol. 2, supra note 125 in Chap. 3, pp. 1679–1680. On the case before the ICJ see Jonathan I. Charney, “The delimitation of ocean boundaries”, in: Rights to Oceanic Resources. Deciding and Drawing Maritime Boundaries, edited by Dorinda G. Dallmeyer and Louis Devorsey, Jr. (Martinus Nijhoff Publishers: Dordrecht, Boston, London, 1989), pp. 40–41. On the agreement see Miyoshi, supra note 2 in Chap. 4, pp. 35–36.

  67. 67.

    Dissenting Opinion of Judge Evensen, pp. 320–321, Continental Shelf (Tunisia/Libya), supra note 10 in Chap. 3.

  68. 68.

    The Eritrea—Yemen Arbitration (second phase), supra note 23 in Chap. 4, paras 84–86.

  69. 69.

    Guyana/Suriname, supra note 25 in Chap. 2, paras. 462–463.

  70. 70.

    Ibid, para. 390.

  71. 71.

    Bangladesh/Myanmar, supra note 71 in Chap. 3, para. 472.

  72. 72.

    Grisbådarna Case (Norway v. Sweden), P.C.A. Award 23 October 1909, 111, 129, reproduced in: United Nations Reports of International Arbitral Awards, vol. XI, pp. 147–166. Also see Moritaka Hayashi, “The management of transboundary fish stocks under the LOS Convention”, in: 8-2 International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law (1993), pp. 245–261; Shigeru Oda, “Sharing of ocean resources-unresolved issues in the Law of the Sea”, in: La Gestion des Ressources pour l’Humanité: Le Droit de la Mer/The Management of Humanity’s Resources: The Law of the Sea, edited by René-Jean Dupuy (Martinus Nijhoff Publishers: The Hague, Boston, London, 1982), pp. 49–62; Ibid, “Fisheries under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea”, in: Law of the Sea, edited by Hugo Caminos (Ashgate/Dartmouth: Aldershot, Burlington US, Singapore, Sydney, 2001), pp. 283–299.

  73. 73.

    Delimitation of the Maritime Boundary in the Gulf of Maine Area, supra note 60 in Chap. 3, paras. 231–238, 240. Also see Maritime Delimitation in the Area between Greenland and Jan Mayen, supra note 33 in Chap. 4, paras. 75, 76. See Jan Schneider, “The Gulf of Maine Case: the nature of an equitable result”, in: 79-3 American Journal of International Law (July 1985), p. 575; David Vanderzwagg, “Transboundary challenges and cooperation in the Gulf of Maine region: riding a restless sea toward misty shores”, in: Law of the Sea. Common Heritage and Emerging Challenges, edited by Harry N. Scheiber (Martinus Nijhoff Publishers: The Hague, London, Boston, 2000), pp. 265–285; Davis R. Robinson, David A. Colson and Bruce C. Rashkow, “Some perspectives on adjudicating before the world court: the Gulf of Maine case”, in: 79-3 American Journal of International Law (July 1985), pp. 578–597; Levi E. Clain, “Gulf of Maine—a disappointing first in the delimitation of a single maritime boundary”, in: 25 Virginia Journal of International Law (1984–1985), pp. 538–543; Sang-Myon Rhee, “Equitable solutions to the maritime boundary dispute between the United States and Canada in the Gulf of Maine”, in: 75 American Journal of International Law (1981), pp. 590–628. On the status of the offshore boundaries of the United States of America and Canada see Jonathan I. Charney, “The offshore jurisdiction of the States of the United States and the Provinces of Canada-a comparison”, in: 12-2 Ocean Development and International Law (1982), pp. 301–335; Albert W. Koers, “Implications of alternative regimes for the Northeast Atlantic treaty system”, in: Fisheries Conflicts in the Northeast Atlantic: Problems of Management and Jurisdiction, edited by Giulio Pontecorvo and Norma Hench Hagist (Ballinger Publishing Company: Cambridge Massachusetts, 1974), pp. 53–70; Johnston, supra note 3, pp. 178–191.

  74. 74.

    Supra note 20, paras. 83–91. On this case see Ted L. McDorman, “The Canada–France maritime boundary case: drawing a line around St. Pierre and Miquelon”, in: 84 American Journal of International Law (1990), pp. 157–189.

  75. 75.

    Maritime Delimitation in the Area between Greenland and Jan Mayen, supra note 33 in Chap. 4, para. 92. Also see Ibid, paras. 75–76.

  76. 76.

    This is the case, for example, of the Persian Gulf. See Ian Townsend-Gault, “Maritime Boundaries in the Arabian Gulf”, in: The Razor’s Edge: International Boundaries and Political Geography, edited by Clive Schofield, David Newman, Alasdair Drysdale and Janet Alison Brown (Kluwer Law International: London, The Hague, New York, 2002), pp. 223–236; Ibid, “Offshore boundary delimitation in the Arabian/Persian Gulf”, in: Ocean Boundary Making: Regional Issues and Developments, edited by, Douglas M. Johnston and Phillip M. Saunders (Croom Helm: London, New York, Sydney, 1988), pp. 217–218; Richard Young, “The Persian Golf”, in: 3 New Directions in the Law of the Sea, edited by Robin Churchill, Myron Nordquist, S. Houston Lay (Oceana Publications Inc.: New York, 1973), p. 233; Ibid, “Equitable solutions for offshore boundaries: the 1968 Saudi Arabia-Iran Agreement”, in: 64 American Journal of International Law (January 1970), pp. 152–157; S.H. Amin, “Law of the continental shelf delimitation: the Gulf example”, in: 27 Netherlands International Law Review (1980), pp. 335–346.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. International Max Planck Research School for Maritime Affairs, Max Planck Institute for Comparative and International Private Law, Hamburg, Germany

    Vasco Becker-Weinberg

Authors
  1. Vasco Becker-Weinberg
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Vasco Becker-Weinberg .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2014 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Becker-Weinberg, V. (2014). The Role of Mineral Resources in Maritime Delimitation. In: Joint Development of Hydrocarbon Deposits in the Law of the Sea. Hamburg Studies on Maritime Affairs, vol 30. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-43570-0_8

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation