Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Procedural Aspects Concerning Jurisdiction and Admissibility in Cases of Maritime Delimitation Before the ICJ

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
International Courts and the Development of International Law

  • 4236 Accesses

Abstract

The article describes certain questions concerning jurisdiction and admissibility in maritime delimitation cases dealt with by the ICJ. Attention is paid to maritime delimitation cases brought before the Court by a unilateral application, in which the respondent challenged the Court’s jurisdiction by entering preliminary objections (e.g.: Greece v. Turkey; Qatar v. Bahrain; Cameroon v. Nigeria; and Nicaragua v. Colombia). As a conclusion, it can be said that the current state of international law concerning jurisdiction and admissibility in maritime delimitation cases is the result of an increase in international litigation which, in turn, is related to an ever more frequent practice of bringing claims against another State without a special agreement. This can only be good news for strengthening the rule of law in the international arena.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 229.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 299.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover 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.

    The expression “tension between geography and law” has been borrowed from Nuno Antunes. However, the terms “history” and “politics” have been added because, in the author’s opinion, they also play a large role within the present topic, see: Antunes 2003, p. 109 and also: Weil 1989, p. 281.

  2. 2.

    Statement by Judge Rosalyn Higgins, President of the International Court of Justice, on the occasion of the tenth anniversary of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, see: www.icj-cij.org. See also: Treves 2000, pp. 726–746.

  3. 3.

    The author is aware of other cases before standing international courts or tribunals in which such issues were discussed upon. However, they were not maritime delimitation cases. At ITLOS, for instance, one could refer to: M/V “Saiga” (no. 2) (Saint Vincent and the Grenadines v. Guinea), Judgment (1 July 1999), paras 40–109, where the jurisdiction of the Tribunal was briefly discussed followed by a lengthier discussion on the admissibility of the claims put forward by the Applicant. For an appraisal of the first case of the ITLOS, see, e.g.: De la Fayette 2000, pp. 467–476. This list does not include the following cases in which the ICJ was seized by means of a unilateral application: Maritime Delimitation on the Area between Greenland and Jan Mayen (Denmark v. Norway), because Norway did not contest the jurisdiction of the Court; Maritime Delimitation between Guinea-Bissau and Senegal because the proceedings were discontinued following the agreement concluded between the Parties on 14 October 1993; Territorial and Maritime Dispute Between Nicaragua and Honduras in the Caribbean Sea (Nicaragua v. Honduras), because Honduras contested neither the jurisdiction of the Court nor the admissibility of the claim; Maritime Delimitation in the Black Sea (Romania v. Ukraine), because Ukraine did not challenge the jurisdiction of the Court; and the Maritime Dispute (Peru v. Chile), because up to the date of this work’s submission, no official objection to the jurisdiction of the Court has been entered by Chile.

  4. 4.

    Such islands are: Samothrace, Limnos, Aghios Eustratios, Lesbos, Chios, Psara and Antipsara. See ICJ: Aegean Sea Continental Shelf (Greece v. Turkey), Application of Greece, p. 3.

  5. 5.

    Ibidem, p. 11.

  6. 6.

    Ibidem, p. 10.

  7. 7.

    Aegean Sea Continental Shelf, supra n. 4, para 15.

  8. 8.

    Ibidem, para 109.

  9. 9.

    Ibidem, para 108.

  10. 10.

    For a general appraisal of the case, including the merits phase, see e.g.: Kwiatkowska 2002, p. 227. For the author this case is “the first major maritime delimitation dispute settled by the International Court of Justice” since the Jan Mayen case, ICJ: Maritime Delimitation in the Area between Greenland and Jan Mayen (Denmark v. Norway), Judgment (14 June 1993). To determine whether such statement is true or not go beyond the scope of this study; however, it is generally known that both Preliminary Objections Judgments as well as the one on the merits have greatly contributed to the development of the law in general and the law of maritime delimitation in particular. See also: Reichel 1997, pp. 725–744.

  11. 11.

    ICJ: Maritime Delimitation and Territorial Questions between Qatar and Bahrain (Qatar v. Bahrain), Judgment (1 July 1994), para 18.

  12. 12.

    Ibidem, para 41.

  13. 13.

    Salmon and Sinclair 2004, p. 1172.

  14. 14.

    Delimitation between Qatar and Bahrain (1 July 1994), supra n. 12, para 38.

  15. 15.

    Delimitation between Qatar and Bahrain (1 July 1994), supra n. 12, Separate Opinion of Vice-President Schwebel, pp. 130–131.

  16. 16.

    Delimitation between Qatar and Bahrain (1 July 1994), supra n. 12, Dissenting Opinion of Judge Oda, para 10.

  17. 17.

    Klabbers 1995, pp. 364–365.

  18. 18.

    Rosenne 1995, p. 164.

  19. 19.

    Ibidem, p. 182.

  20. 20.

    Ibidem, pp. 171–176.

  21. 21.

    Ibid, p. 173. In this vein, the author recalls that the first case brought before the ICJ on this basis was the Asylum case concerning an agreement called the Act of Lima of 31 August 1949. See ICJ: Asylum (Colombia/Peru), Judgment (20 November 1950), p. 266.

  22. 22.

    Rosenne 1995, p. 181.

  23. 23.

    Chinkin 1997, p. 224.

  24. 24.

    Ibidem, p. 224.

  25. 25.

    Ibidem, p. 225.

  26. 26.

    Ibid, p. 247.

  27. 27.

    Salmon and Sinclair 2004, p. 1175.

  28. 28.

    Such subjects included, according to Qatar, the Hawar Islands, including the island of Janan; Fasht al Dibal and Qit’ at Jaradah; the archipelagic baselines; Zubarah; the areas for fishing for pearls and for fishing for swimming fish and any other matters connected with maritime boundaries; see ICJ: Maritime Delimitation and Territorial Questions between Qatar and Bahrain (Qatar v. Bahrain), Judgment (15 February 1995), paras 9–14.

  29. 29.

    Ibidem, para 16.

  30. 30.

    Ibidem.

  31. 31.

    Ibidem, para 40.

  32. 32.

    Ibidem, para 44.

  33. 33.

    Ibid., para 50.

  34. 34.

    For example: Fisheries Jurisdiction case in which the UK proposed to insert: “at the request of either two Parties”, see ICJ: Fisheries Jurisdiction (United Kingdom v. Iceland), Judgment (2 February 1973), para 19.

  35. 35.

    See, e.g. PCIJ: Legal Status of Eastern Greenland (Denmark v. Norway), Judgment (5 April 1933); ICJ: Nuclear Tests (New Zealand v. France), Judgment (20 December 1974); Aegean Sea Continental Shelf, supra n. 4; United States Diplomatic and Consular Staff in Tehran (United States of America v. Iran), Order (12 May 1981).

  36. 36.

    Klabbers 1995, p. 376.

  37. 37.

    On 6 June 1994, Cameroon filed in the Registry an Additional Application concerning the extension of the subject of the dispute to the question of sovereignty over a part of the territory of Cameroon in the area of Lake Chad; and the determination of the frontier between the two States from Lake Chad to the sea. This request was not objected to by either Nigeria or the Court which, by an order so indicated (ICJ: Land and Maritime Boundary between Cameroon and Nigeria (Cameroon v. Nigeria: Equatorial Guinea intervening), Order (16 June 1994).

  38. 38.

    For an appraisal of the situation of the African States concerning proceedings before the ICJ, see e.g.: Perrin 1997, p. 185.

  39. 39.

    Ibidem, p. 187.

  40. 40.

    ICJ: Right of Passage over Indian Territory (Portugal v. India), Judgment (26 November 1957). The Court then prescribed: “The contractual relation between the Parties and the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court resulting therefrom are established, ‘ipso facto and without special agreement’”.

  41. 41.

    ICJ: Land and Maritime Boundary between Cameroon and Nigeria (Cameroon v. Nigeria: Equatorial Guinea intervening), Judgment (11 June 1998), paras 41–45.

  42. 42.

    Ibidem, Dissenting Opinion of Vice President Weeramantry, p. 365.

  43. 43.

    Ibidem, p. 362.

  44. 44.

    Land and Maritime Boundary (Cameroon v. Nigeria) (11 June 1998), supra n. 43, paras 48–60.

  45. 45.

    Ibidem, paras 67–68.

  46. 46.

    Ibidem, paras 74–83.

  47. 47.

    Ibidem, paras 84–94.

  48. 48.

    Ibidem, paras 98–101.

  49. 49.

    Ibidem, paras 103–111.

  50. 50.

    Ibidem, paras 112–117. Regarding the issue of an objection not having an exclusively preliminary character, the Court decided to amend its Rules, especially Article 79.7 in 2001 (the amendment entered into force on 1 February 2001). See, e.g.: Eisemann 1998, pp. 178–182.

  51. 51.

    Land and Maritime Boundary (Cameroon v. Nigeria) (11 June 1998), supra n. 43, para 118.

  52. 52.

    Entered into force on 6 May 1949.

  53. 53.

    With respect to the Declarations made by the Parties, the Court noted that they were: “(…) made (…) under Article 36 of the Statute of the Permanent Court of International Justice, which are deemed, for the period which they still have to run, to be acceptances of the compulsory jurisdiction of the present Court pursuant to Article 36, para 5, of its Statute.” See ICJ: Territorial and Maritime Dispute (Nicaragua v. Colombia), Judgment (13 December 2007), para 1.

  54. 54.

    Ibidem, para 6.

  55. 55.

    Ibidem, para 12.

  56. 56.

    Articles of the Constitution: Article 2 stipulated, inter alia, that “treaties may not be reached that oppose the independence and integrity of the nation or that in some way affect her sovereignty…”. Article 3 provided that “[p]ublic officials only enjoy those powers expressly granted to them by Law. Any action of theirs that exceeds these [powers] is null.”.

  57. 57.

    ICJ: Territorial and Maritime Dispute (Nicaragua v. Colombia), supra n. 56, para 81.

  58. 58.

    Ibidem, para 104.

  59. 59.

    Ibidem, para 97.

  60. 60.

    Ibidem, para 120.

  61. 61.

    Ibidem, para 142. On 19 November 2012, the Court rendered its judgement on the merits of this case, finding that Colombia has soverignty over the islands at Albuquerque, Bajo Nuevo, East-Southeast Cays, Quitasueño, Roncador, Serranailla and deciding the line of the single maritime boundary delimiting the continental shelf and the exclusive economic zones of Nicaragua and Colombia in the Caribbean Sea.

  62. 62.

    For this author: “Article 36(2), the so-called optional clause, was born amid controversy and has lived amid controversy; (…) we think it should be permitted to die in peace”, see: Scott and Craig 1987.

References

  • Athanasopulos H (2001) Greece Turkey and the Aegean Sea. McFarland and company, Jefferson

    Google Scholar 

  • Antunes N (2003) Towards the conceptualization of Maritime delimitation. Legal and technical aspects of a political process. Martinus Nijhoff, Leiden

    Google Scholar 

  • Bekker P (1998) Land and Maritime boundary between Cameroon and Nigeria (Cameroon v. Nigeria). Am J Int Law 92:387–398

    Google Scholar 

  • Chinkin C (1997) A Mirage in the sand? distinguishing binding and non-binding relations between states. Leiden J Int Law 10:223–247

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De la Fayette L (2000) The M/V ‘Saiga’ (Nº 2) case (St. Vincent and the Grenadines v. Guinea) Judgment. Int Comp Law Q 49:467–476

    Google Scholar 

  • Diemer C, Šeparović A (2006) Territorial questions and Maritime delimitation with regard to Nicaragua’s claims to the San Andrés Archipelago. Zeitschrift für Ausländisches Öffentliches Recht und Völkerrecht 66:167–186

    Google Scholar 

  • Eisemann P-M (1998) L’affaire de la frontière terrestre et maritime entre le Cameroun et le Nigeria (Entretien), L’observateur des Nations Unies 5

    Google Scholar 

  • Klabbers J (1995) Qatar v. Bahrain: The Concept of ‘Treaty’ in international law. Archiv des Völkerrechts 33:361–376

    Google Scholar 

  • Kwiatkowska B (2002) The Qatar v. Bahrain Maritime delimitation and territorial questions case. Ocean Dev Int Law 33:227–262

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McDorman T (2000) Dispute settlement and the Law of the sea with special reference to the Aegean sea. In: Chircop A, Gerolymatos A, Iatrides J (eds) The Aegean sea after the cold war. Macmillan Press, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Özgür Ö (1996) The Greco-Turkish disputes over the Aegean sea. Südost-Europa 45:615–638

    Google Scholar 

  • Perrin D (1997) L’arrêt de la C.I.J. du 11 juin 1998 dans l’affaire de la frontiere terrestre et maritime entre le Cameroun et le Nigeria (Cameroun c. Nigeria). Exceptions préliminaires. L’observateur des Nations Unies 5

    Google Scholar 

  • Reichel M (1997) Maritime délimitation and territorial questions between Qatar and Bahrain. Denver J Int Law Policy 26:725–744

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosenne S (1995) The Qatar/Bahrain case: what is a treaty? A framework agreement and the seising of the court. Leiden J Int Law 8:435–443

    Google Scholar 

  • Salmon J, Sinclair I (2004) Special features of the Qatar v. Bahrain case before the ICJ. Affaire de la delimitation maritime et des questions territoriales entre Qatar et Bahreïn. L’arrêt de la C.I.J. du 16 mars 2001. In: Studi di diritto internazionale in onore di Gaetano Arangio-Ruiz, Tome II. Editoriale Scientifica, Napoli, pp 1167–1242

    Google Scholar 

  • Scott GL, Carr GL (1987) The ICJ and compulsory jurisdiction: the case for closing the clause. Am J Int Law 81:57–76

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Treves T (2000) Le tribunal international du droit de la mer et la multiplication des juridictions internationales. Rivista di diritto internazionale 83:726–746

    Google Scholar 

  • Weil P (1989) The law of Maritime delimitation: reflections. Cambridge Grotius Publications Limited, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Ph.D. Candidate in International Law, Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies, Geneva, Switzerland

    Angel V. Horna

Authors
  1. Angel V. Horna
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Angel V. Horna .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. , Dipartimento di diritto pubblico, University of Milan - Statale University, Via Festa del Perdono 7, Milan, 20122, Italy

    Nerina Boschiero

  2. Bicocca University, Dipartimento giuridico, University of Milan, Piazza dell’Ateneo Nuovo 1, Milan, 20126, Italy

    Tullio Scovazzi

  3. , Dipartimento di Diritto,, University of Parma, Via Università 12, Parma, 43121, Italy

    Cesare Pitea

  4. , Dipartimento di diritto pubblico, University of Milan - Statale University, Via Festa del Perdono 7, Milan, 20122, Italy

    Chiara Ragni

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2013 T.M.C. ASSER PRESS, The Hague, The Netherlands, and the authors

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Horna, A.V. (2013). Procedural Aspects Concerning Jurisdiction and Admissibility in Cases of Maritime Delimitation Before the ICJ. In: Boschiero, N., Scovazzi, T., Pitea, C., Ragni, C. (eds) International Courts and the Development of International Law. T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague, The Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-6704-894-1_13

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Societies and partnerships

Search

Navigation