Abstract
The Caspian is a particularly frustrating predicament for international legal scholars. There are almost no treaties specifying which international legal regime has to be applied, and those few that exist are riddled by omissions or are plainly obsolete. Local custom is vague and extremely inconsistent. General international law does not shed much light on the matter either. However the problem is approached, it inevitably makes scholars wonder whether the Caspian is to be legally classified as a lake or a sea. But it does not seem to be either of them. The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea does not apply to the Caspian. While customary international law of the sea can help to clam the nature of coastal states’ rights, by itself it cannot help to determine their spatial extension. Similarly, the analysis of the legal regime of international watercourses, or lakes, does not shed any much more light on where or how boundaries should be traced, nor on the extent of customary competencies of Caspian states within those spatial limits. It is not possible to wholesale the legal regime of enclosed seas and/or international lakes to the Caspian without due regard to its historical, geophysical and legal peculiarity. It is up to Caspian states to decide which legal regime the Caspian should have. Customary international law can supplement any agreement they might enter into, but by itself is not enough to reconcile the conflicting interests of the Caspian states and ensure the sustainable development of regional resources.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
On the issue of the legal regime of the Caspian, see: Yakemtchouk, R. (1999), Les Hydrocarbures de la Caspienne, Bruylant, Bruxelles; Pratt, M./Schofield, C. (1997), International Boundaries, Resources and Environmental Security in the Caspian Sea, in Blake, G. (ed.), International Boundaries and Environmental Security: Frameworks for Regional Cooperation,Kluwer, London, pp. 81–104; Romano, C.P.R. (1997), La Caspienne: Un Flou Juridique Source de Conflits, Cahiers d’Etudes sur la Mediterranée Orientale et le Monde Turco-Iranien, n. 23, 39–64; Vinogradov, S. and Wouters, P. (1995), The Caspian Sea: Current Legal Problems, Zeitschrift für Ausländisches und Öffentliches Recht und Völkerrecht,vol. 55, 604–623; Oxman, B. (1996), Caspian Sea or Lake: What Difference Does It Make?, Caspian Crossroads Magazine, vol. I, 4, Available: http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/usazerb/casp.htm (site last visited June 1, 1999); Clagett, B.M. (1995), Ownership of Seabed and Subsoil Resources in the Caspian Sea under the Rules of International Law, Caspian Crossroads Magazine, vol. I, 3, Available at: http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/usazerb/casp.htm (site last visited June 1, 1999); Mizzi, A.P. (1996), Caspian Sea Oil, Turmoil and Caviar: Can They Provide a Basis for an Economic Union of the Caspian States?, Colorado Journal of International Environmental Law and Politics, vol. 7, pp. 483–504; Dabiri, M. R. (1994), A New Approach to the Legal Regime of the Caspian Sea as a Basis for Peace and Development, The Iranian Journal of International Affairs, vol. 6, pp. 28–46; Uibopuu, H.J. (1995), The Caspian Sea: A Tangle of Legal Problems, The World Today, vol. 51, pp. 119–123; Elferink, A. (1998), The Legal Regime of the Caspian Sea: Are the Russian Arguments Valid?, in Risnes, B., The Legal Foundations of the New Russia, Norwegian Institute of International Affairs, Oslo, pp. 25–42; Allonsius, D. (1997), Le Régime Juridique de la Mer Caspienne. Problèmes Actuels de Droit International Public, Librairie Générale de Droit et de Jurisprudence, Paris; Dowlatchal, A. (1961), La Mer Caspienne, sa Situation au regard du Droit International, Paris, Ph.D. Dissertation.
The existence of oil in the basin of the Caspian Sea has been known for centuries. The first exploitation of the Baku oil fields dates back to the beginning of the eighteenth century. The first refinery was founded by the Nobel brothers in 1875. In 1910 Baku oil fields provided 85% of Russian oil output. See CRESACI (1995), Le pétrole et le gaz russes, CRES, Geneva, pp. 229–230. Whether the Caspian oil reserves deserve to be at the center of such a fierce dispute, however, is arguable. As Robert Cullen wrote: “The idea that [soviet geologists] would have overlooked vast Central Asian deposits that now are await ready for exploitation by more canny Western firms smacks, at best, of hubris and, at worst, of a desire to extract some fat commissions and consulting fees from gullible investors”. See Cullen, R. (1994), Central Asia and the West, in Mandelbaum, M., (ed.), Central Asia and the World, Council on Foreign Relations Press, New York, pp. 130–146, at 139.
Yakemtchouk, op.cit., at 10.
Dupuy, R.-J.,Nignes, D. (1991), A Handbook on the New Law of the Sea, Nijhoff, Dordrecht, (2 vols.), vol. 1, pp. 54–55.
Quéneudec, J.P. (1977), Les Tendances Régionales dans le Droit de la Mer, in Société Française pour le Droit International, Régionalisme et Universalisme dans le Droit International Contemporain, Pedone, Paris, pp. 261–262; Benchikh, M. (1980), La Mer Méditerranée, Mer Semi-Fermée, Revue Générale de Droit International Public, vol. 84, pp. 284–297, at 285–286.
Parry, G. (1969–1981), The Consolidated Treaty Series (1648–1919), vol. 33 at 157.
Article V of the Gulistan Treaty provided that: “… les vaisseaux marchands russes auront, comme antérieurement, le droit de naviguer le long des cotes de la mer Caspienne et d’y aborder… Quant aux vaisseaux de guerre, comme avant la guerre, ainsi que durant la paix et dans tout temps, le pavillon russe a seul flotté sur la mer Caspienne, il aura aussi maintenant sous ce rapport le même droit exclusif qu’auparavant, de manière qu’outre la puissance russe aucune autre ne puisse arborer un pavillon militaire sur la mer Caspienne”. De Martens, G.-F. (1876–1908), Nouveau Recueil de Traites, vol. 4, at 89.
Ibid., vol. 7, at 568. The Turkomanchaï Treaty provided that Russian military ships are “…ab antiquo les seuls qui aient eu le droit de naviguer sur la mer Caspienne”. Under this agreement, Russia further expanded its control over the region, acquiring the northern Persian provinces of Erevan and Nakhitchevan beyond the Araks (approximately currently corresponding to Armenia and Azerbaijan).
It is interesting to note that some have seen the exclusive right of navigation of Russian military vessels on the Caspian as the sign of the renunciation of Persia to sovereignty over parts of that body of water. The Enciclopedia Universal Ilustrada Europeo-Americana reads: “Desde el punto de vista del Derecho Internacional, aunque geográficamente no es el Caspio un mar cerrado, por tener costas pertenecientes á Persia y h Rusia, legalmente sí lo es, considerándose como ruso, por virtud del tratado de Tourkmantchaï (1828), por el artículo 8, del cual el Sha cedió perpetuamente h Rusia el derecho exclusivo de mantener barcos de guerra en dicho mar, que está sometido h las leyes y autoridades rusas”. See “Caspio”, in Enciclopedia Universal Ilustrada Europeo-Americana, Madrid, Espasa-Calpe, 1911–1975, vol. 12, at 174.
“…nul et non avenu l’ensemble des traites et conventions conclus avec la Perse par le gouvernement tsariste, traites ou conventions qui opprimaient le peuple persan…”. League of Nations Treaty Series, vol. 9, at 401.
Ibid., art. 11.
League of Nations Treaty Series, vol. 176, at 301.
Sbornik deistvouyuschikh dogovorov, soglasheniy i konventsiy, zaklyuchyonnikh SSSR s inostrannymi gosoudarstvami (Collection of Treaties, Agreements and Conventions, Concluded by the USSR with Foreign States), Moscow, Gos. lzd-vo polit. Lit-ry, 1955–1981, vol. X, at 56.
“The high contracting parties are agreed that, according to the fundamental principles set forth in the treaty of February 21, 1921, concluded between Iran and the R.S.F.S.R., no vessels other than those belonging to Iran or the USSR or in an equal manner to the subjects and the commercial or transport organizations of one of the high contracting parties, sailing under the flag of Iran or of the USSR, may exist in the whole of the Caspian Sea”. Ibid., art. 13. [Quotation from the English text reproduced in Yakemtchouk, op.cit., at 135].
Ibid., art. 12.4.
Agreement Regarding the Exploitation of the Fisheries on the Southern Shore of the Caspian Sea, with Protocol and Exchange of Notes, (I October 1927). League of Nations Treaty Series, vol. 112, at 297. The company acquired official status with a further agreement signed on October 31, 1931, and maintained its monopoly over certain species of fish until 1953, when the Iranian Government decided not to renew the agreement. Sobranie zakonov i rasporiazhenii raboche-krestianskogo pravitelstva SSSR (Collection of Laws and Edicts of the Government of Workers and Peasants of the USSR), Moscow, 1932, vol. II, n.17, art. 186. See Vinogradov/Wouters, op.cit., at 609.
The Eastern part of the Russian-Persian land border was defined first in 1881 by a Bilateral Border Commission, established under the Convention on the Regulation of the Boundary to the East of the Caspian Sea, (9 December 1881). De Martens, op.cit.,vol. 3, at 332. The land border was confirmed with minor changes by the 1921 Treaty. For a short history of the Eastern part of the Russia/Iran border, see: Maleki, A. (1992), Iran’s North Eastern Border: From Sarakhs to Khazar (The Caspian), Iranian Journal of International Affairs, vol. 4, pp. 617–627.
For what concerns oil and gas issues, it should also be recalled that in 1946, Persia and the USSR reached an agreement giving the Soviet Union all oil concessions along the Caspian Sea. The agreement covered a region stretching from the border with Turkey to the border with Afghanistan, embracing the whole of the southern shore of the Caspian. The Iranian Parliament, however, never ratified the agreement. Mitchell, M. (1949), Maritime History of Russia: 848–1948, Sidgwick and Jackson, London, at 160.
A delimitation line on the Caspian as a continuation of the terrestrial border between Astara and Husseingoli was unilaterally established in 1935 by the Soviet Ministry of Internal Affairs. The 1964 Agreement on Aerial Traffic bears no reference to flights over the Caspian Sea, nevertheless it institutes a Flight Information Region, delimited by an imaginary line uniting the two extremes of the Iran-USSR borders on land (Astara-Husseinqoli). New Times, 1964, n. 34, at 29.
Yakemtchouk, op.cit., at 99.
For instance see, the Ordinance of the Soviet Government of September 23, 1968; Ordinance of the Supreme Soviet of September 20, 1972; Ordinance of the Kazakh Government of April 30, 1974; Joint ordinance of the Soviet Oil and Gas Ministry and Azeri Government, January 18, 1991. According to Soviet scholars the legal significance of the partitioning of the Caspian seabed made by the USSR Gas and Oil Ministry is limited. USSR Oil and Gas Ministry Ordinances had a mere administrative value and could not be interpreted as giving to the republics any proprietary rights, since the Union, according to a principle enshrined in all Soviet constitutions, enjoyed exclusive ownership of all natural resources. See Yakemtchouk, op.cit., at 99; Feldbrugge, F. J. M., Berg, G.P., Simons, W. B. (1985), Natural Resources, Encyclopedia of Soviet Law, Nijhoff, Dordrecht, at 533.
The principle of uti possidetis juris sanctions the respect for territorial boundaries, deriving both from international agreements as well as for those resulting from mere internal administrative divisions, at the time independence is achieved. On the principle see, inter alla, the judgment rendered by a chamber of the International Court of Justice in the Frontier Dispute Case (Burkina Faso/Republic of Mali), Judgment, ICJ Reports, 1986 at 554.
The 1978 Vienna Convention on Succession of States with Respect of Treaties provides for the continuation of treaties principle, unless concerned states otherwise agree. This is the case, in particular of Article 34 (Succession of States in Cases of Separation of Parts of a State) and Article 35 (Position if a State Continues after Separation of Part of Its Territory). See Vienna Convention on Succession of States with Respect of Treaties, August 23, 1978, UN Doc. A/CONF.80/31 (1978), International Legal Materials, vol. 17, 1978, at 1488. On the 1978 Vienna Convention, see in general, Menon, P.K. (1981), The Vienna Convention of 1978 on Succession of States with Respect of Treaties, Revue de Droit International, des Sciences Diplomatiques et Politiques, vol. 59, pp. 1–81; Bello, E.G. (1980), Reflections on Succession of States in the Light of the 1978 Vienna Convention on Succession of States with Respect of Treaties, German Yearbook of International Law, vol. 23, pp. 296–322; Gruber, A. (1986), Le Droit International de la Succession d’Etat, Bruylant, Bruxelles. However, the 1978 Convention has not yet entered into force and is not likely to be in the near future. The main reason for this is the difference of treatment between “Newly Independent States” (that is states emerging from the decolonization process) and other states emerging from union or dissolution of states. While the 1978 Convention applies to the former the principle of non-transmissibility (“clean slate” doctrine), the latter remain bound by international treaties concluded by the predecessor. The great majority of scholars do not regard the 1978 Convention as a codification of customary international law. See Brownlie, I. (1990), Principles of Public International Law, Clarendon Press, Oxford, at 667–670. States’ practice indicates that the rule of non-transmissibility is the principle rather than the exception. A number of writers, however, have taken the view that there is a category of dispositive or localized treaties concerning the incidents of enjoyment of a particular piece of territory in the matter of demilitarized zones, right of transit, navigation, port facilities and fishing rights. This category of treaties in their view is transmissible. See O’Connell, D.P. (1967), State Succession in Municipal Law and International Law, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, (2 vols.), vol. 2, at 12–23 and 231 and ff.; McNair, A.D. (1986), The Law of Treaties, Clarendon Press, Oxford, at 655–664. On states succession from the former USSR, in particular, see: Koskenniemi, M./Lehto, M. (1992), Succession d’États de l’ex-URRS, avec Examen Particulier des Relations avec la Finlande, Annuaire Français de Droit International vol. 38, pp. 179–219; Mullerson, R. (1993), The Continuity and Succession of Sstates by Reference to the Former USSR and Yugoslavia, International and Comparative Law Quarterly, vol. 42, pp. 473–493; Lukashuk, 1.1. (1993), Rußland als Rechtnachfolger in Völkerrechtliche Verträge der UdSSR, Osteuropa Recht, vol. 39, pp. 235–245.
See Agreement Establishing the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS), Minsk, 8 December 1991, (Article 12). International Legal Materials, vol. 31, 1992, at 138. See also Declaration by the Heads of State of Belarus, Russia and Ukraine, Minsk, 8 December 1991, (Preamble). International Legal Materials, vol. 31, 1992, at 142. Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan, inter alia, joined the CIS with the Protocol to the Agreement Establishing the CIS signed at Minsk on 8 December 1991 by the Republic of Belarus, the Russian Federation and Ukraine, signed in Alma Ata, on 21 December 1991. International Legal Materials, vol. 31, 1992, at 147.
Vinogradov and Wouters do not subscribe to the “legal vacuum” thesis. See Vinogradov and Wouters, op.cit.,at 620.
Pondavin, Dowlatchaï, Dabiri, Dipla, and Mizzi, to cite but a few, consider the Caspian a lake. Op.cit. The same view is shared by Butler who, in 1969, wrote: “Soviet jurists regard the Caspian as a large lake that historically has been called a sea. General norms of international law relative to the high seas, to vessels and their crews sailing on the high seas do not extend to the Caspian, whose regime is governed by Soviet-Iranian treaties and agreements”. See Butler, W.E. (1969), The Soviet Union and the Continental Shelf, American Journal of International Law, vol. 63, at 106. Conversely, Uibopuu, op.cit., considers the Caspian a sea.
United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, concluded in Montego Bay on December 10, 1982. International Legal Materials, vol. 21, 1982, at 1261.
Russia acceded to the UNCLOS on March 12, 1997. http://www.un.org/Depts/los/stat2los.txt. Site last visited May 20, 1999.
Article 122 provides that “enclosed or semi-enclosed sea means a gulf, basin or sea surrounded by two or more states and connected to another sea or the ocean by a narrow outlet or consisting entirely or primarily of the territorial seas and exclusive economic zones of two or more coastal states”. [italics added]. Because the Caspian has no connection with other seas or the world ocean by a narrow outlet (and considering the Volga River as such would be an absurd), the Convention does not apply to it. As some scholars acutely remarked, the Caspian “… ne peut être juridiquement considéré, malgré la salure de ses eaux, comme faisant partie de la mer, car [elle est] fermée. La Mer Caspienne qui baigne plusieurs États peut être l’objet de rapports régis par le droit international; mais, comme mer ”privée“, sans communication avec le reste des océans, elle n’est pas une dépendance de la mer au regard des règles générales du ‘droit de la mer”. See Nguyen, Q.D., Dailler, P., Pellet, A. (1991), Droit International Public, 4th ed., Librairie Générale de Droit et de Jurisprudence, Paris, at 1015.
As a matter of fact, it is doubtful whether the notion of enclosed and semi-enclosed seas introduced by the UNCLOS actually reflects customary international law. See Symonides, J. (1984), The Legal Status of the Enclosed and Semi-Enclosed Seas, German Yearbook of International Laiv, vol. 27, pp. 315–333; Alexander, L.M. (1992), The Management of Enclosed and Semi-enclosed Seas, in Fabbri, P., (ed.), Ocean Management in Global Change, Elsevier, London, 1992, pp. 539–549. In other words, it is uncertain whether customary international law of the sea cannot be applied to the Caspian. The concept of enclosed and semi-enclosed seas is not new in the doctrine of international law. But its notion has undergone changes since its emergence. Originally legal scholars differentiated between enclosed and semi-enclosed seas. While the former are completely land-locked and do not have an outlet to other seas, the latter, thought equally land-locked, are connected to other seas through a strait. See, inter alfa, Gervais, A./Fouilloux, G., Mer, Repertoire de Droit International, Paris, Dalloz, vol. 69, at 333. According to Pondavin, enclosed seas should be, therefore, assimilated to intemational lakes. See Pondavin, op.cit.,at 12–13. However, the 1982 UNCLOS changed completely the historically prevailing legal meaning of the term “enclosed sea”. The UNCLOS does not distinguish between enclosed and semi-enclosed seas, but merges them instead into a new general category.
Infra [67].
For instance, Vinogradov and Wouters, Clagett and Oxman exclude the applicability lock, stock and barrel either of the law of the sea and/or of international law orderly applicable to international lakes. As Oxman pointed out, “To what extent, if any, does the legal classification of the Caspian Sea as a sea or a lake make a difference in selecting between competing legal results?”. Oxman, op.cit., at 4.
Oxman, op.cit., at 4. Indeed, no matter how the Caspian is considered (sea or lake) this will not change the basic fact that there exist different and concurrent (Nebeneinander verschiedener) sovereign rights. See, Dahm, G. (1989), Völkerrecht, 2 ed., De Gruyter, Berlin, vol. 1, at 403. Either way the Caspian is considered, it should be recalled that lakes and completely land-locked seas belong to the territory of their coastal States. See. Verdross, A., Simma, B. (1984), Universelles Völkerrecht, 3rd ed., Dunker & Humblot, Berlin, at 672.
For an excellent summary, in general see: Yakemtchouk, op.cit.; Alexandrov, M., Russian-Kazakh Contradictions on the Caspian Sea Legal Status. Available at: http://www.arts.unimelb.edu.au/Dept/CERC/bulfeb98.htm (site last visited March 6, 1999).
See, in general, Yakemtchouk, op.cit.. See also the special issue of the Cahiers d’Etudes sur la Méditerranée Orientale et le Monde Turco-Iranien, No. 23, 1997 on the Caspian (Vaner, pp. 143–166; Giroux, pp. 167–182; Raczka, pp. 183–207)
On the position of Russia on the legal regime of the Caspian, see Position of the Russian Federation regarding the Legal Regime of the Caspian Sea. Document Transmitted by the Permanent Representative of the Russian Federation to the UN Secretary General. October 5,1994, UN Doc. A/49/475, 5 October 1994. See also Ostrovsky, Y. (1994), Russia against Unilateral Actions in Regard to the Caspian Sea, Rossiyskoye Obozrenye, n.20, 30 September 1994, pp. 7–8, at 8; Cheterian, V. (1997), Sea or Lake: A Major Issue for Russia, Cahiers d’Etudes sur la Mediterranée Oorientale et le Monde Turco-Iranien, n. 23, pp. 103–125.
I.e., the enactment of the Turkmenistan “Law on the State Border”, adopted in 1993, which established Turkmenistan’s jurisdiction on a share of the Caspian sea, implementing the internal waters, territorial sea, exclusive economic zone and continental shelf concepts, or the conclusion by Azerbaijan of the “contract of the century” with a consortium of Western oil companies. See also the Declaration of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Turkmenistan of July 5, 1997; Declaration of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Kazakhstan of August 29, 1997; the Position Paper of the Islamic Republic of Iran of September 3, 1997. Yakemtchouk, op.cit. at 154, 155 and 156.
Yakemtchouk quotes a series of joint declarations about the Caspian: Russia-Turkmenistan (August 12, 1995); Russia-Kazakhstan (April 27, 1996); Azerbaijan-Kazakhstan (September 16, 1996). Idem, op.cit. at 149, 151 and 152.
In February 1992 Iran proposed the establishment of a regional organization to coordinate cooperation of Caspian states. Uncertainties over the legal regime of the Caspian, however. killed the project. Yakemtchouk, op.cit., at 37–38.
Agreement between the Russian Federation and Kazakhstan on the Delimitation of the Sea-Bed of the Northern Part of the Caspian Sea, concluded in Moscow on July 6, 1998. The text of the agreement has been reproduced, in French, by Yakemtchouk, op.cit., at 162–165. The following analysis has been made on the basis of the text provided by Yakemtchouk. Any gas and oil fields straddling such boundary will be exploited jointly. Ibid., art 2.
“Les fonds de la partie septentrionale de la mer Caspienne et son sous-sol sont partagés entre les Parties suivant la méthode de la ligne médiane, telle que modifiée en vertu du principe d’équité et par accord entre les Parties…”. Ibid., art. 1. The Agreement starts by recognizing the patent inadequacy of the current legal regime as developed by Russia and Iran to regulate relationship among Caspian states and calls all other Caspian states to conclude a framework agreement on the Caspian legal regime (of which the Russia-Kazakhstan agreement is supposed to be an integral part). Ibid., preamble.
Ibid. art. 5
. Ibid. art. I.
Higgins, R. (1991), International Law and the Avoidance, Containment and Resolution of Disputes, The Hague Academy of International Law, Collected Courses, vol. 230, No. 5, at 185–186.
The same is true, for that matter, in the case of all other internal waters, intended as “Waters on the landward side of the baseline of the territorial sea form part of the internal waters of a State”. Article 5.1 of the Geneva Convention on the Territorial Sea and the Contiguous Zone, 29 April 1958. United Nations Treaty Series,vol. 516, at 205. This definition has been repeated in Article 8.1 of the UNCLOS.
The dimensions of the Caspian Sea have sensibly changed during centuries. The Caspian, nowadays, is about 650 nautical mile long on the North-South axis and an average of 180 mile wide on the East-West axis. In its narrower part the coasts of Turkmenistan and Azerbaijan, between capes Apsheron and Tarta, are separated by about 100 mile. In its larger part its coasts are about 270 mile distant. Not even in its largest point the Caspian is wider than 400 nautical mile. The UNCLOS fixed at 200-mile maximum limit for the extension of the continental shelf (Art. 76) (which is gradually getting customary recognition). Beyond the 200 mile-limit the seabed is considered as “Common Heritage of Mankind” (Art. 1.1 and 136).
For a comprehensive analysis of existing states’ practice in the area of maritime delimitation see: Charney, J.I./Alexander, L.M. (1993), (eds.), International Maritime Boundaries, 2 vol., Nijhoff, Dordrecht, Nijhoff. See also, in the specific case of enclosed seas, Alexandrov, S.A. (1992), Delimitation of the Continental Shelf in an Enclosed Sea, Hague Yearbook of International Law, vol. 5, pp. 3–32.
See in general, Singh Sehgal, B.P. (1988), World Court on Delimitation of Continental Shelf: A Critique, Indian Journal of International Law, vol. 28, pp. 486–496.
. North Sea Continental Shelf Case (Federal Republic of Germany/Denmark; Federal Republic of Germany/Netherlands), Judgment, ICJ Reports, 1969, pp. 1–257.
Idem, at 53.
In the specific case of the Caspian Sea, the equidistance line might prove particularly problematic for Azerbaijan’s agreement with foreign oil companies. Considered that the drilling, under that agreement, will take place some 120 mile east of Baku and that the Caspian Sea has an average width of only 200 mile. Therefore, if the equidistance principle was applied, the new oil fields are within the continental shelf of Azerbaijan’s opposite neighbor, Turkmenistan. See Uibopuu, op.cit., at 122.
Ahnish, F.A. (1993), The International Law of Maritime Boundaries and the Practice of States in the Mediterranean Sea, Clarendon Press, Oxford, at 92–106. See also, Evans, M.D. (1991), Maritime Delimitation and Expanding Categories of Relevant Circumstances, International and Comparative Law Quarterly, vol. 40, pp. 1–33; Gilas, J. (1991), Equitable Principles of the Delimitation of the Continental Shelf, Polish Yearbook of International Law, vol. 19, at 61–69.
Ahnish, op.cit., at 88–92.
Lagoni, R. (1981–1990), Internal Waters, in Bernhardt, R. (ed.), Encyclopedia of Public International Law, Elzevier, Amsterdam, vol. 11, at 154.
. North Sea Continental Shelf, Judgment, para. 80.
. North Sea Continental Shelf Judge Ammoun (separate opinion), at 124–127; Judge Tanaka (dissenting opinion), at 175.
Oxman, op.cit., at 10.
Convention on the Law of the Non-Navigational Uses of International Watercourses, adopted by the UN General Assembly in New York on May 21, 1997, UN. Doc. A/RES/51/229. International Legal Materials,vol. 36, 1997, at 700–720.
On May 26, 1999 the UN Convention on the Law of the Non-Navigational Uses of International Watercourses had been ratified by four States out of thirty-five required for its entry into force. Available at http://www.un.org/Depts/Treaty/ (site last visited May 26, 1999).
Draft Articles and Commentaries on the Law of the Non-Navigational Uses of International Watercourses, Adopted on Second Reading by the International Law Commission at its Forty-Sixth Session, UN. Doc. A/CN.4/L.493, Add.1 and Add.2 (12 July 1994). Text reprinted in Environmental Law and Policy, vol. 24, 1994, at 335.
On the delimitation of States sovereignty over intemational lakes see: Dipla, H. (1981), Le Tracé de la Frontière sur les Lacs Internationaux, in Zacklin, Ri Caflisch, L., (eds.), The Legal Regime of International Rivers and Lakes,Nijhoff, Dordrecht, 1981, pp. 247–306; Pondavin, Ph. (1972), Les Lacs-Frontière, Pedone, Paris, 1972; Caflisch, L. (1989), Règles Générales du Droit des Cours d’Eau Internationaux, Hague Academy of International Law, Collected Courses, vol. 219, No.7, pp. 113–225.
For an analysis of the concept of “equitable use of natural resources”, see: Handl, G. (1978), The Principle of “Equitable Use” as Applied to Internationally Shared Resources: Its Role in Resolving Potential International Disputes over Transfrontier Pollution, Revue Belge de Droit International, vol. 14, pp. 40–64.
On the issue of intergenerational equity in contemporary intemational law see: Brown Weiss, E. (1989), In Fairness to Future Generations, Transnational Publisher, Dobbs Ferry, New York.
Oxman, B. (1993), Drawing Lines in the Sea, Yale Journal of International Law, vol. 18, pp. 663–674; Sharma, S. (1989), Delimitation of Land and Sea Boundaries between Neighboring States, New Delhi, Lancer Books.
Auburn, F.M./ Forbes, V./Scott, J. (1994), Comparative Oil and Gas Joint Development Regimes, in Grundy-Warr, C. (ed.), World Boundaries, vol. 3 (Eurasia), Routledge, London and New York, pp. 196–212.
E.g. the 1976 Frigg Field Reservoir Agreement between UK and Norway. United Kingdom Treaty Series, n. 113.
This is the case of the 1988 Wellington Convention on the Regulation of Antarctic Mineral Resource Activities (UN Doc. AMR/SCM/88/78). International Legal Materials, vol. 27, 1988, at 868.
Miyoshi, M. (1988), The Basic Concept of Joint Development of Hydrocarbon Resources on the Continental Shelf, International Journal of Estuarine and Coastal Law, vol. 3, I, pp. 1–18; Hui, Y. (1992), Joint Development of Mineral Resources: an Asian Solution?, Asian Yearbook of International Law, vol. 2, pp. 87–112.
UN Office of Ocean Affairs and the Law of the Sea (1987), Law of the Sea: Maritime Boundaries Agreements (1970–1984), United Nations, New York, at 283.
. Ibid.,at 217.
. International Legal Materials, vol. 29, 1990, at 469. On the Timor Gap Treaty see, in general: Bergin, A. (1990), The Australian-Indonesian Timor Gap Maritime Boundary Agreement, International Journal of Estuarine and Coastal Law,vol. 4/5 (1989–1990), pp. 383–397; Moloney, G.J. (1990), Australian-Indonesian Timor Gap Zone of Cooperation Treaty: A New Offshore Petroleum Regime, Journal of Energy and Natural Resources Law, vol. 8, pp. 128–141; Wilheim, E. (1989), Australia-Indonesia Sea-Bed Boundary Negotiations: Proposal for a Joint Development Zone in the ‘Timor Gap’, Natural Resources Journal, vol. 29, pp. 819–842. The Timor Gap Treaty is to be in force for forty years and can be renewed for successive terms of twenty years if no permanent continental-shelf delimitation has been reached in the meantime.
Dulait, A. and Thual, F. (1998), La Nouvelle Caspienne, Ellipses, Paris, at 75.
Oxman, op.cit., at 12.
Effectivity exists when a State exercises, on the territory over which it claims sovereignty, activities that only sovereign states can carry out, provided that this exercise is continuous and peaceful. Island of Palmas Case, Reports of International Arbitral Awards, vol. I1, pp. 829, at 840. See also Legal Status of Eastern Greenland (Norway vs. Denmark), Permanent Court of International Justice 2 Series A/B, n. 54, pp. 22–147, at 45–46.
The final paragraph of the Russian Government’s communication to the UN Secretary General on its position on the Caspian legal regime issue is, in this sense, ominous. It reads: “Unilateral action in respect of the Caspian Sea is unlawful and will not be recognized by the Russian Federation, which reserves the right to take such measures as it deems necessary and whenever it deems appropriate, to restore the legal order and overcome the consequences of unilateral actions. Full responsibility for these events, including major material damage, rests with those who undertake unilateral action and thereby display their disregard for the legal nature of the Caspian Sea and for their obligations under international agreements”. Supra [37].
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2000 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Romano, C.P.R. (2000). The Caspian and International Law: Like Oil and Water?. In: Ascher, W., Mirovitskaya, N. (eds) The Caspian Sea: A Quest for Environmental Security. NATO Science Series, vol 67. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-4032-4_11
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-4032-4_11
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-0-7923-6219-7
Online ISBN: 978-94-011-4032-4
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive