MARITIME BOUNDARY DISPUTES
AND INTERNATIONAL LAW
Overview

Familiarity with international law of maritime
boundary delimitation.

Provide context on maritime boundary disputes.

Familiarity with some major non-Arctic disputes.
Maritime Zones
Theory

Land dominates the sea.

Really the coastline.

Maritime boundary law.

Economic factors (stability).
Maritime Zones and Boundaries

Territorial Sea: 12 nm.

Contiguous Zone: 12 nm.

Exclusive Economic Zone: 200 nm (1982).

Extended Continental Shelf: up to 350 nm or
100 nm beyond 2,500m isobath.

Variety of boundaries may be needed.

Adjacent and opposite.

May be multiple states in same area.
Opposite States
Adjacent States
Interests

Lots of different interests in play when setting
boundaries.

Security (esp. TS).

Fisheries (EEZ).

Oil and gas (EEZ and ECS).

Access to High Seas (esp. TS, but also EEZ).
Maritime Boundaries Today and in
History

Land was apportioned through use of force.

Now not legal to use force to alter boundaries.

Territorial integrity norm.

Seems similar at sea.

History at sea involved use of force.

Maritime jurisdiction not created through force.

Boundaries not usually violated today.

Important role for international law.
Legal Means of Delimitation

Negotiation leading to treaty.

Conciliation Commission.

Arbitration.

Adjudication at an international court or tribunal.

Courts/tribunals have played a major role in
maritime delimitations.

Many states avoid litigation.

“Equal disappointment.”
What is Maritime Boundary Law?




Body of rules on how to delimit maritime
boundaries.
Plays role in litigation, arbitration and even
negotiations.
Sources of international law: custom, treaties,
court decisions, opinions of academics,
principles recognized by civilized nations.
Maritime boundary law is a combination of
these, though primarily state practice (custom),
treaties and judicial decisions.
Boundaries: Two Perspectives




Equidistance.
A line every point of
which is an equal
distance from the nearest
points on the respective
coasts.
Certain, easy to
calculate.
Equity: Fairer, but
vaguer?
Continental Shelf Convention
Article 6
1. Where the same continental shelf is adjacent to the territories of two or
more States whose coasts are opposite each other, the boundary of
the continental shelf appertaining to such States shall be determined
by agreement between them. In the absence of agreement, and
unless another boundary line is justified by special
circumstances, the boundary is the median line, every point of
which is equidistant from the nearest points of the baselines
from which the breadth of the territorial sea of each State is
measured.
2. Where the same continental shelf is adjacent to the territories of two
adjacent States, the boundary of the continental shelf shall be
determined by agreement between them. In the absence of
agreement, and unless another boundary line is justified by
special circumstances, the boundary shall be determined by
application of the principle of equidistance from the nearest
points of the baselines from which the breadth of the territorial
sea of each State is measured.
UN Convention on the Law of the
Sea
Article74
Delimitation of the exclusive economic zone between States with opposite or
adjacent coasts
1. The delimitation of the exclusive economic zone between States with opposite
or 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.
Article83
Delimitation of the continental shelf between States with opposite or adjacent
coasts
1. The delimitation of the continental shelf between States with opposite or
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.
Three (Really Five) Step Test

ICJ Judgment in Romania v. Ukraine, 2009.
1. Establish the provisional equidistance line.
2. Consider whether there are factors calling
for the adjustment or shifting of the
provisional equidistance line.
3. Check that there is no marked
disproportionality in maritime areas, as
compared to the ratio of the relative coastal
lengths of the parties.
The Two Prior Steps
Precedents




Decisions of international courts only binding on
those to whom addressed.
Nevertheless, play important role in
jurisprudence and negotiations.
Several cases have generated a set of
precedents.
May be difficult to apply.
English Channel
English Channel Delimitation
St Pierre and Miquelon
St Pierre and Miquelon Arbitration
North Sea
North Sea Continental Shelf
Delimitation
Libya-Malta
Libya-Malta Delimitation
Natural Prolongation
The Continental Shelf is “to be conceived... as a
submarine prolongation of the territory: a natural
prolongation, without breach of continuity.”
The International Court of Justice, North Sea Continental Shelf Case
Australia/Indonesia/Timor Leste
Seafloor Within 200nm
Natural Prolongation and
Delimitation





Libya had argued geological principles.
Court decided that distance-based zones meant
natural prolongation irrelevant within 200 nm.
Did not say irrelevant beyond 200 nm.
State practice has mostly treated geology as
irrelevant.
Clarification in Bay of Bengal Case?
Bay of Bengal
Bay of Bengal
Bay of Bengal Delimitation


“The continental shelf of a coastal State can
extend either to the outer edge of the
continental margin or to a distance of 200 nm,
depending on where the outer edge is situated.”
“The method to be employed in the present
case for the continental shelf beyond 200
nautical miles should not differ from that within
200 nm. Accordingly, the equidistance/relevant
circumstances method continues to apply for
the delimitation of the continental shelf beyond
200 nm.”
Assessment



Maritime boundaries cannot legally be made by
acts of force or coercion.
Treaty provisions appear vague.
Clarification by courts and tribunals/state
practice.

Body of common law.

Precedents may be tricky to apply.

Disputes still possible.
Maritime Boundary Disputes
Maritime Boundary Disputes
Cause
Consequences
Legal Uncertainty
Not much
Illegal Claims
Delimitation
Cooperation
Strained relations
War?
The Cod Wars


Series of fisheries disputes between UK and
Iceland (1958-1976).
Iceland extended fishing zone: 4nm, 50nm,
200nm.

Ramming incidents, net cutting.

Iceland sought armaments.

Ended with Iceland victory.
Aegean Sea
Aegean Sea Dispute
6 nm
12 nm
Aegean Sea Dispute


Currently 6 nm territorial sea.
Concern that Greece could turn Aegean into
Greek Lake.

Turkish Parliament: Greek extension act of war.

Airspace dispute. Dogfights.


Continental shelf dispute. English Channel
Case.
Exploration led to military buildup in 70s and
80s.
Regime of Islands
Article121
Regime of islands
1. An island is a naturally formed area of land, surrounded by
water, which is above water at high tide.
2. Except as provided for in paragraph 3, the territorial sea, the
contiguous zone, the exclusive economic zone and the
continental shelf of an island are determined in accordance with
the provisions of this Convention applicable to other land
territory.
3. Rocks which cannot sustain human habitation or economic life
of their own shall have no exclusive economic zone or
continental shelf.
An Island?
A Rock
A Rock and Some Nationalists
What Shall We Do?
South China Sea
Coastal States and Claimants

People's Republic of China (and Taiwan).

Vietnam.

The Philippines.

Malaysia.

Brunei.

Interested states: USA, Australia, Singapore,
Indonesia, India, other members of ASEAN.
Acquisition of Territory

Concept of res nullius.

Discovery creates inchoate title.

Perfected by effective occupation.

Less needed for inhospitable locations.

Acquiescence.

Territorial contiguity?

Continental shelves?
Territorial Dispute





China claims all the Spratly Islands based on
historical discovery and control.
Taiwan mirrors China's claim.
Vietnam claims all the Spratly Islands based on
historical discovery and control/colonial
inheritance.
Philippines claims some islands based on
proximity and discovery/occupation.
Malaysia claims some islands based on
proximity.
South China Sea Dispute
Maritime Claims





Philippines has withdrawn excessive claims.
Vietnam and Malaysia jointly submitted data to
the CLCS.
Other claimants appear to draw ECS from
mainland.
China protested claims and introduced its ninedashed line map.
Map first appeared in 1948 and is mysterious.
Are the Spratlys Islands?




Perhaps up to nine that may meet the test, but
maybe none.
Most very small, with many having no
vegetation or water supplies.
Some appear not to be above water at high
tide.
Claimants other than China appear to take
position that most, if not all, are rocks.
China's Claim?
China's Claim?

Historic waters? Territorial claim? Maritime
boundary claim?

Taiwan's withdrawal of historic waters claim.

China's ambiguous position.

2009 exchange of notes.

Greater compliance with LOS from China?
China's Ambiguous Position
1998 EEZ Law:
“The provisions of this Law shall not affect the
historic rights enjoyed by the People's Republic of
China.”
Reference to historic rights in 1992 territorial sea
law.
References to “sovereignty, sovereign rights and
jurisdiction” in protest.
China's Ambiguous Position
“Since 1930s, the Chinese Government has given
publicity several times the geographical scope of
China’s Nansha Islands and the names of its
components. China’s Nansha Islands is therefore
clearly defined. In addition, under the relevant
provisions of the 1982 United Nations Convention on
the Law of the Sea, as well as the Law of the People’s
Republic of China on the Territorial Sea and the
Contiguous Zone (1992) and the Law on the Exclusive
Economic Zone and the Continental Shelf of the
People’s Republic of China (1998), China’s Nansha
Islands is fully entitled to Territorial Sea, Exclusive
Economic Zone (EEZ) and Continental Shelf.”
(See attached map!!)
An Expansionist China?
Worrying Rhetoric?
China's Global Times stated that if “Vietnam wants to
start a war, China has the confidence to destroy
invading Vietnam battleships.”
Xinhua News Agency stated that China had the resolve
to “protect every inch of its territories.”
PLA strategist in 2009 stated ambiguously and ominously
that “boundaries of national interest,” rather than
simply territorial boundaries would need to be
defended to safeguard national security interests and
future national development.
But MFA has taken a careful tone.
China's Assertions of Jurisdiction
Crestone Energy concession.
Promise to protect by force.
Mischief Reef incident.
2012 Scarborough Shoal Incident.
Involvement of fishing and marine surveillance
vessels.
Non-involvement of PLA.
Others have made similar assertions, though.
Action-reaction dynamic.
China's Behaviour
1


Cable cutting.
Exploration blocks
put out to tender.
2
1. Location of the exploration blocks. 2. Within Vietnam's EEZ. 3. Beyond the equidistance
line with the Spratlys.
3
The Strategies of the Claimants

Delegitimize China's claim.

Balance within ASEAN.

Draw in the United States.

China's preference: negotiate bilaterally.

Shelve disputes and develop resources jointly.
International Reaction


Indonesia efforts to broker a resolution.
Singapore protested Chinese nine-dashed line
map.

US refusal to take position on island dispute.

Importance of free navigation.

Demand to base rights on LOS.
Managing Disputes

Agree to disagree.

Cooperate on submissions to CLCS.

Litigation, arbitration or conciliation.

Negotiate a delimitation.

Joint development.

Joint management.