Slide 1

-+ INKWELLS

THE INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE AND THE GREEK CASE OF THE AEGEAN SEA: THE DISPUTE OVER THE CONTINENTAL SHELL OF THE GREEK ISLANDS The Role of the International Court of Justice The Court has a twofold role: to settle, in accordance with international law, legal disputes submitted to it by States: a) Contentious cases - disputes brought before the Court by a unilateral application filed by one State against another State- and b) Advisory Proceedings : the Court is called to give advisory opinions on legal questions referred to the court by duly authorized United Nations organs and specialized agencies-disputes submitted to the Court on the basis of a special agreement between two States. It was established by the United Nations Charter in June 1945 and began its activities in April 1946. The seat of the Court is at the Peace Palace in The Hague (Netherlands). Of the six principal organs of the United Nations, it is the only one not located in New York. (its judgments have binding force and are without appeal for the parties concerned)http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/index.php?p1=3

9/19/20161

Jurisdiction stone blocks in an ICJ Judgement for the long routed Aegean Sea dispute between Greece v. Turkey, obstructed the official recognition of the Greek state rights: Continental Shelf & Territorial rights of the Greek islands,- islands of the Aegean Archipelagos.

9/19/20162

Archipelagos Aegeus & The Aegean Sea

Anarchipelago sometimes called anisland group orisland chain, is a chain, cluster or collection ofislands. The wordarchipelagois derived from the Greek - arkhi-("chief")-The Beginning- and plagos("sea") through the Italianarcipelago. InItalian, possibly following a tradition ofAntiquity theArchipelago (from Greek and Latinarchipelagus) was the proper name for the Aegean SeaAegean Seaand, later, usage shifted to refer to theAegean Islands(since the sea is remarkable for its large number of islands). The Aegean Islands are traditionally subdivided into seven groups, from north to south:Northeastern Aegean Islands- All the Aegean islands are Greek islands. They belong to the Aegean sea- Samos,Ikaria,Chios,Lesbos,Lemnos,Agios Efstratios,Psara,Fournoi Korseon,Oinoussesand islands ofImbrosTenedos... The main islands in theThracian Seain the far north are the Greek islands ofSamothraceandThasos.------------------------------------------------------illustration of Aegeas 410400 BC-(Northern) SporadesEuboeaArgo-Saronic IslandsCycladesDodecanese (Southern Sporades)CreteArchipelagos is now used to refer to any island group or, sometimes, to a sea containing a small number of scattered islands.- wikipedia-Anarchipelagic stateis any internationally recognized state or country that comprises a series of islands that form an archipelago. In various conferences of the United Nations on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS),Fiji,-330 islands-Indonesia,Papua New Guinea, theBahamas,-700 islands - and thePhilippinesare the fivesovereign statesthat obtained approval in the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) held inMontego Bay,Jamaicaon December 10, 1982 and qualified as archipelagic states.Archipelagic states are states that are composed of groups of islands forming a state as a single unit, with the islands and the waters within the baselines as internal waters. Under this concept ("archipelagic doctrine"), an archipelago shall be regarded as a single unit, so that the waters around, between, and connecting the islands of the archipelago, irrespective of their breadth and dimensions, form part of the internal waters of the state, and are subject to its exclusive sovereignty.

9/19/20163

Archipelagos Interal WatersScotland has over 790 offshore islands, most of which are to be found in four main groups:Shetland,Orkney, and theHebrides, sub-divided into theInner HebridesandOuter Hebrides. There are also clusters of islands in theFirth of Clyde,Firth of Forth, andSolway Firth, and numerous small islands within the many bodies ofin Scotland includingLoch LomondandLoch Maree.All "archipelagic waters" within the outermost islands of anarchipelagic statesuch asIndonesia- more than thirteen thousand islands or thePhilippines- it consists of 7,641 islands- are also considered internal waters, and are treated the same with the exception that innocent passage through them must be allowed. Scotish Archipelagos -with more than 700 islands - Indonesian Archipelagos 13,000 islands9/19/20164

Territorial Waters : State Sovereignty

9/19/20165

The Median Line?For Archipelagos?

The triangle medians and the centroid.

9/19/20166

Historical waves of the Greek state borders A Greek maps 1880 Greek-Orthodox Metropolises in Asia Minor, 1881 ....1920 ......https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M99ze151HvA 1821 Sky TV documentary on Greece 2013- The Values and the Price of Freedom in Greece. The Greek Nation in Need for an Inclusive Meritocratic Democracy The impact of confused foreign Intervention. -Violation of Human Rights The Church Line of a Passover in Christ. -Even the Kings were not chosen and selected by the Church in Greece . Schism of 1054 https://www.britannica.com/event/Schism-of-1054 Christianity .....Justinian the Great 6th Century ...http://ancient-greece.org/history.html https://www.google.com/maps/d/viewer?ll=28.536275%2C36.123047&spn=50.408124%2C88.857422&msa=0&mid=1oRID23s4qQtM4a3EMLWZUpj7M5Uhttp://www.ancient.eu/greece/ Maps Greek City States back to 1100 BCE...

9/19/20167

8th century BC :The Greek state since Archaic times:A.Greek territorieduring 750-550 BC B. Greek territories(4th century1023.... 1453)

C. TheIonian Islandswere returned by Britain upon the arrival of the new King George I in 1863 D) 191213Epirus, southernMacedonia,Creteand theAegean Islandswere annexed into theKingdom of Greece. Another enlargement followed in 1947, when Greece annexed the Dodecanese Islands from Italy.

9/19/20168

8

Maps of the Greek stateI) 336323 BC Maps of Alexander's the Great routeII)TheGreek state and the Greek diaspora in the Balkans and western Asia Minor, according to a 1919 map submitted to theParis Peace Conference.III) The three occupation zones. Blue indicates the Italian, red the German and green the territory annexed by Bulgaria. The Italian zone was taken over by the Germans in September 1943.

9/19/20169

The Byzantium times and the Promise of Christ Historical the controversies over the Greek borders and the customary law.

9/19/201610

Exchange of Greek and Turkish Population CaseAdvisory Opinio PCIJ. Reports, Series B, No 10-In Cases and Materials on International Law-Referring to Article 18 of the Treaty of Lausanne 1923, by which the parties undertook to introduce in their respective laws such modifications as may be necessary with a view to ensuring the execution of the present Convention the Court stated:Opinion of the Court:This clause...merely lays stress on the principle which is self-evident, according to which a State which has contracted valid international obligations is bound to make in its legislation such modifications as may be necessary to ensure the fulfilment of the obligations undertaken. https://www.britannica.com/event/Treaty-of-Lausanne-1923- The treaty of Lausanne,(1923), finaltreatyconcluding after the World War I. Turkey made no claim to its former Arab provinces and recognizedBritish possession ofCyprusandItalianpossession of theDodecanese.https://wwi.lib.byu.edu/index.php/Treaty_of_Lausanne ARTICLE 20.Turkey hereby recognises the annexation of Cyprus proclaimed by the British Government in November, 1914. PART II. FINANCIAL CLAUSES. SECTION I. OTTOMAN PUBLIC DEBT. ARTICLE 46. Thus, such clauses-in time of the end of a war are not valid-Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Territories and Peoples : G.A. Resolution 1514 December 14,1960 :The General Assembly ...Declares that: 1. The subjection of peoples to alien subjugation, domination and exploitation consitutes a denial of fundamental human rights, is contrary to the Charter of the United Nations and is an impediment to the promotion of world peace and co-operation.5. Immediate steps shall be taken, in Trust and Non-Self-Governing Territories or all other territories which have not yet attained independence, to transfer all powers to the peoples of those territories, without any conditions or reservations, in accordance with their freely expressed will and desire, without any distinction as to race, creed or colour, in order to enable them to enjoy complete independence and freedom. http://www.un.org/en/decolonization/declaration.shtml Adopted by General Assembly resolution 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960

9/19/201611

The Greek ArchipelagosArticle 49. Legal status of archipelagic waters, of the air space over archipelagic waters and of their bed and subsoil . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..............37http://www.un.org/depts/los/convention_agreements/texts/unclos/unclos_e.pdf Article 49 Legal status of archipelagic waters, of the air space over archipelagic waters and of their bed and subsoil. 1. The sovereignty of an archipelagic State extends to the waters enclosed by the archipelagic baselines drawn in accordance with article 47, described as archipelagic waters, regardless of their depth or distance from the coast. 2. This sovereignty extends to the air space over the archipelagic waters, as well as to their bed and subsoil, and the resources contained therein. 3. This sovereignty is exercised subject to this Part. 4. The regime of archipelagic sea lanes passage established in this Part shall not in other respects affect the status of the archipelagic waters, including the sea lanes, or the exercise by the archipelagic State of its sovereignty over such waters and their air space, bed and subsoil, and the resources contained therein.Article 50. Delimitation of internal waters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..................37Article 50: Delimitation of internal waters: Within its archipelagic waters, the archipelagic State may draw closing lines for the delimitation of internal waters, in accordance with articles 9, 10 and 11.

9/19/201612

The Greek ArchipelagosArticle 47 Archipelagic baselines 1. An archipelagic State may draw straight archipelagic baselines joining the outermost points of the outermost islands and drying reefs of the archipelago provided that within such baselines are included the main islands and an area in which the ratio of the area of the water to the area of the land, including atolls, is between 1 to 1 and 9 to 1. 2. The length of such baselines shall not exceed 100 nautical miles, except that up to 3 per cent of the total number of baselines enclosing any archipelago may exceed that length, up to a maximum length of 125 nautical miles. 3. The drawing of such baselines shall not depart to any appreciable extent from the general configuration of the archipelago. 4. Such baselines shall not be drawn to and from low-tide elevations, unless lighthouses or similar installations which are permanently above sea level have been built on them or where a low-tide elevation is situated wholly or partly at a distance not exceeding the breadth of the territorial sea from the nearest island. 5. The system of such baselines shall not be applied by an archipelagic State in such a manner as to cut off from the high seas or the exclusive economic zone the territorial sea of another State. 6. If a part of the archipelagic waters of an archipelagic State lies between two parts of an immediately adjacent neighbouring State, existing rights and all other legitimate interests which the latter State has traditionally exercised in such waters and all rights stipulated by agreement between those States shall continue and be respected. 7. For the purpose of computing the ratio of water to land under paragraph l, land areas may include waters lying within the fringing reefs of islands and atolls, including that part of a steep-sided oceanic plateau which is enclosed or nearly enclosed by a chain of limestone islands and drying reefs lying on the perimeter of the plateau. 8. The baselines drawn in accordance with this article shall be shown on charts of a scale or scales adequate for ascertaining their position. Alternatively, lists of geographical coordinates of points, specifying the geodetic datum, may be substituted. 9. The archipelagic State shall give due publicity to such charts or lists of geographical coordinates and shall deposit a copy of each such chart or list with the Secretary-General of the United Nations. Article 48 Measurement of the breadth of the territorial sea, the contiguous zone, the exclusive economic zone and the continental shelf The breadth of the territorial sea, the contiguous zone, the exclusive economic zone and the continental shelf shall be measured from archipelagic baselines drawn in accordance with article 47.9/19/201613

The Greek ArchipelagosArticle 9 Mouths of rivers: If a river flows directly into the sea, the baseline shall be a straight line across the mouth of the river between points on the low-water line of its banks. Article 10 Bays 1. This article relates only to bays the coasts of which belong to a single State. 2. For the purposes of this Convention, a bay is a well-marked indentation whose penetration is in such proportion to the width of its mouth as to contain land-locked waters and constitute more than a mere curvature of the coast. An indentation shall not, however, be regarded as a bay unless its area is as large as, or larger than, that of the semi-circle whose diameter is a line drawn across the mouth of that indentation. 3. For the purpose of measurement, the area of an indentation is that lying between the low-water mark around the shore of the indentation and a line joining the low-water mark of its natural entrance points. Where, because of the presence of islands, an indentation has more than one mouth, the semi-circle shall be drawn on a line as long as the sum total of the lengths of the lines across the different mouths. Islands within an indentation shall be included as if they were part of the water area of the indentation. 4. If the distance between the low-water marks of the natural entrance points of a bay does not exceed 24 nautical miles, a closing line may be drawn between these two low-water marks, and the waters enclosed thereby shall be considered as internal waters. 5. Where the distance between the low-water marks of the natural entrance points of a bay exceeds 24 nautical miles, a straight baseline of 24 nautical miles shall be drawn within the bay in such a manner as to enclose the maximum area of water that is possible with a line of that length. 6. The foregoing provisions do not apply to so-called "historic" bays, or in any case where the system of straight baselines provided for in article 7 is applied. Article 11 Ports For the purpose of delimiting the territorial sea, the outermost permanent harbour works which form an integral part of the harbour system are regarded as forming part of the coast. Off-shore installations and artificial islands shall not be considered as permanent harbour works.9/19/201614

YEARBOOK 2012-2013 I.C.J. - THE HAGUE - 2013http://www.icj-cij.org/publications/en/yearbook.pdf In March 1947 the International Court of Justice instructed the Registrar to publish a Yearbook providing general information concerning its organization, jurisdiction, activities and administration. http://www.icj-cij.org/publications/en/manuel_en.pdfArticle 38, paragraph 1, of the Statute of the Court declares that the Courts function is to decide in accordance with international law such disputes as are submitted to it. In every case, after determining which rules of international law are applicable, it is the Courts duty to give its decision based on those rules. Article 38, paragraph 1, goes on to provide that the international law to be applied by the Court is to be derived from the following sources : (a) international conventions, whether general or particular, establishing rules expressly recognized by the contesting States ; (b) international custom, as evidence of a general practice accepted as law ; (c) the general principles of law recognized by civilized nations ; 95 INT Manuel Anglais_Mise en page 1 12/09/14 10:29 Page95 (d) subject to the provisions of Article 59, judicial decisions and the teachings of the most highly qualified publicists of the various nations, as subsidiary means for the determination of rules of law.

15

Aegean Sea Continental Shelf (Greece v. Turkey)On 10 August 1976, Greece instituted proceedings against Turkey in a dispute over the Aegean Sea continental shelf. It asked the Court in particular to declare that the Greek islands in the area were entitled to their lawful portion of conti- nental shelf and to delimit the respective parts of that shelf appertaining to Greece and Turkey. At the same time, it requested provisional measures indicating that, pending the Courts judgment, neither State should, without the others consent, engage in exploration or research with respect to the shelf in question. On 11 September 1976, the Court found that the indication of such measures was not required and, as Turkey had denied that the Court was competent, ordered that the proceedings should first concern the question of jurisdiction. In a Judgment delivered on 19 December 1978, the Court found that jurisdiction to deal with the case was not conferred upon it by either of the two instruments relied upon by Greece : the application of the General Act for Pacific Settlement of International Disputes (Geneva, 1928) whether or not it was in force was excluded by the effect of a reservation made by Greece upon accession, while the GrecoTurkish press communiqu of 31 May 1975 did not contain an agreement binding upon either State to accept the unilateral referral of the dispute to the Court.THE INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE : HANDBOOK p.124/1259/19/201616

Continental Shelf (Tunisia/Libyan Arab Jamahiriya)The parties with Special Agreement notified the Court in 1978,and asked the Court to determine what principles and rules of international law were applicable in the case. The Court concluded, in a Judgment of 24 February 1982, that the two countries abutted on a common continental shelf and that physical criteria were therefore of no assistance for the purpose of delimitation. Hence it had to be guided by equitable principles (as to which it emphasized that this term cannot be interpreted in the abstract, but only as referring to the principles and rules which may be appropriate in order to achieve an equitable result) and by certain factors such as the necessity of ensuring a reasonable degree of proportionality between the areas allotted and the lengths of the coastlines concerned. The Court found that the application of the equidistance method could not, in the particular circumstances of the case, lead to an equitable result. With respect to the course to be taken by the delimitation line, it distinguished two sectors : near the shore, it considered, having taken note of some evidence of historical agreement as to the maritime boundary, that the delimitation (beginning at the boundary point of Ras Adjir) should run in a north-easterly direction at an angle of approximately 26 ; further seawards, it considered that the line of delimitation should veer eastwards at a bearing of 52 to take into account the change of direction of the Tunisian coast to the north of the Gulf of Gabes and the existence of the Kerkennah Islands, to which a half-effect was attributed.THE INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE : HANDBOOK (page125 includes maps page126) 9/19/201617

Continental Shelf (Libyan Arab Jamahiriya/Malta)This case, which was submitted to the Court in 1982 by Special Agreement between Libya and Malta, related to the delimitation of the areas of continental shelf appertaining to each of these two States. In support of its argument, Libya relied on the principle of natural prolongation and the concept of proportionality. Malta maintained that States rights over areas of continental shelf were now governed by the concept of distance from the coast, which was held to confer a primacy on the equidistance method of defining boundaries between areas of continental shelf, particularly when these appertained to States lying directly opposite each other, as in the case of Malta and Libya. The Court found that, in view of developments in the law relating to the rights of States over areas of continental shelf, there was no reason to assign a role to geographical or geophysical factors when the distance between the two States was less than 400 miles (as in the instant case). It also considered that the equidistance method did not have to be used and was not the only appropriate delimitation technique. The Court defined a number of equitable principles and applied them in its Judgment of 3 June 1985, in the light of the relevant circumstances. It took account of the main features of the coasts, the difference in their lengths and the distance between them. It took care to avoid any excessive disproportion between the continental shelf appertaining to a State and the length of its coastline, and adopted the solution of a median line transposed northwards over a certain distance. In the course of the proceedings, Italy applied for permission to intervene, claiming that it had an interest of a legal nature under Article 62 of the Statute. The Court found that the intervention requested by Italy fell, by virtue of its object, into a category which on Italys own showing was one which could not be accepted, and the Application was accordingly refused. THE INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE : HANDBOOK page 129 inlcudes map- 9/19/201618

Application for Revision and Interpretation of the Judgment of 24 February 1982 in the Case concerning the Continental Shelf (Tunisia/Libyan Arab Jamahiriya) (Tunisia v. Libyan Arab Jamahiriya)This application was submitted to the Court by Tunisia, which took the view that the 1982 Judgment (see No. 1.47 above) gave rise to certain problems of implementation. Although the Court had already had to deal with several requests for interpretation, this was the first time an application for revision had come before it. The Statute of the Court states that a judgment may only be revised if there has been a discovery of some fact of such a nature as to be a decisive factor. Libya opposed Tunisias twofold application, denying that there had been any problems of implementation of the kind invoked by Tunisia, and arguing that Tunisias request for interpretation was merely an application for revision, in another guise. In its Judgment of 10 December 1985, rendered unanimously, the Court rejected the application for revision as inadmissible. It found admissible the request for interpretation of the Judgment of 24 February 1982 so far as it related to the first sector of the delimitation laid down by that Judgment, stated the interpretation which should be made in that respect, and found that the submission of Tunisia relating to that sector could not be upheld ; it found moreover that the request made by Tunisia for the correction of an error was without object, and that there was no call for it to give a decision thereon. The Court also found admissible the request for interpretation of the Judgment of 24 February 1982 so far as it related to the most westerly point of the Gulf of Gabes in the second sector of the delimitation laid down by that Judgment, stated the interpretation which should be made in that respect, and found that it could not uphold the submission made by Tunisia relating to that sector. In conclusion, the Court found that no cause had arisen for it to order an expert survey for the purpose of ascertaining the precise co-ordinates of the most westerly point of the Gulf of Gabes.THE INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE : HANDBOOK p.132

9/19/201619

Maritime Delimitation in the Area between Greenland and Jan Mayen (Denmark v. Norway)On 16 August 1988, the Government of Denmark filed in the Registry an Application instituting proceedings against Norway, by which it seised the Court of a dispute concerning the delimitation of Denmarks and Norways fishing zones and continental shelf areas in the waters between the east coast of Greenland and the Norwegian island of Jan Mayen, where both Parties laid claim to an area of some 72,000 square kilometres. On 14 June 1993, the Court delivered its Judgment. Denmark had asked the Court to draw a single line of delimitation of those areas at a distance of 200 nautical miles measured from Greenlands baseline, or, if the Court did not find it possible to draw such a line, in accordance with international law. Norway, for its part, had asked the Court to find that the medianine constituted the two lines of separation for the purpose of the delimitation of the two relevant areas, on the understanding that those lines would then coincide, but that the delimitations would remain conceptually distinct. A principal contention of Norway was that a delimitation had already been established between Jan Mayen and Greenland, by the effect of treaties in force between the Parties a bilateral Agreement of 1965 and the 1958 Geneva Convention on the Continental Shelf as both instruments provide for the drawing of a median line. The Court noted, in the first place, that the 1965 Agreement covered areas different from the continental shelf between the two countries, and that that Agreement did not place on record any intention of the Parties to undertake to apply the median line for any of the subsequent delimitations of that continental shelf. The Court then found that the force of Norways argument relating to the 1958 Convention depended in the circumstances of the case upon the existence of special circumstances as envisaged by the Convention. It subsequently rejected the argument of Norway according to which the Parties, by their conjoint conduct had long recognized the applicability of a median line delimitation in their mutual relations. The Court examined separately the two strands of the applicable law : the effect of Article 6 of the 1958 Convention, applicable to the delimitation of the continental shelf boundary, and then the effect of the customary law which governed the fishery zone.After examining the case law in this field and the provisions of the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, the Court noted that the statement (in those provisions) of an equitable solution as the aim of any delimitation process reflected the requirements of customary law as regards the delimitation both of the continental shelf and of exclusive economic zones. It appeared to the Court that, both for the continental shelf and for the fishery zones in the instant case, it was proper to begin the process of delimitation by a median line provisionally drawn, and it then observed that it was called upon to examine every particular factor in the case which might suggest an adjustment or shifting of the median line provisionally drawn.The 1958 Convention required the investigation of any special circumstances ; the customary law based upon equitable principles for its part required the investigation of the relevant circumstancesTHE INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE : HANDBOOK p.137- includes map page139-9/19/201620

Maritime Delimitation and Territorial Questions between Qatar and Bahrain (Qatar v. Bahrain) I On 8 July 1991, Qatar filed in the Registry of the Court an Application instituting proceedings against Bahrain in respect of certain disputes between the two States relating to sovereignty over the Hawar Islands, sovereign rights over the shoals of Dibal and Qitat Jaradah and the delimitation of their maritime areas. Qatar founded the jurisdiction of the Court upon certain agreements between the Parties stated to have been concluded in December 1987 and December 1990, the subject and scope of the commitment to accept that jurisdiction being determined by a formula proposed by Bahrain to Qatar in October 1988 and accepted by the latter State in December 1990 (the Bahraini formula). As Bahrain contested the basis of jurisdiction invoked by Qatar, the Parties agreed that the written proceedings should first be addressed to the questions of jurisdiction and admissibility.After a Memorial of the Applicant and Counter-Memorial of the Respondent had been filed, the Court directed that a Reply and a Rejoinder be filed by each of them, respectively.On 1 July 1994 the Court delivered a first Judgment on the above-mentioned questions. It took the view that both the exchanges of letters of December 1987 between the King of Saudi Arabia and the Amir of Qatar, and between the King of Saudi Arabia and the Amir of Bahrain, and the document entitled Minutes and signed at Doha in December 1990 constituted international agreements creating rights and obligations for the Parties ; and that by the terms of those agreements they had undertaken to submit to the Court the whole of the dispute between them. In the latter regard, the Court pointed out that the Application of Qatar did not cover some of the constitutive elements that the Bahraini formula was supposed to cover. It accordingly decided to give the Parties the opportunity to submit to it the whole of the dispute as circumscribed by the Minutes of 1990 and that formula, while fixing 30 November 1994 as the time-limit within which the Parties were, jointly or separately, to take action to that end. On the prescribed date, Qatar filed a document entitled Act, which referred to the absence of an agreement between the Parties to act jointly and declared that it was submitting the whole of the dispute to the Court. On the same day, Bahrain filed a document entitled Report in which it indicated, inter alia, that the submission to the Court of the whole of the dispute must be consensual in character, that is, a matter of agreement between the Parties. By observations submitted to the Court at a later time, Bahrain indicated that the unilateral Act of Qatar did not create that jurisdiction [of the Court] or effect a valid submission in the absence of Bahrains consent. By a second Judgment on the questions of jurisdiction and admissibility, delivered on 15 February 1995, the Court found that it had jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the dispute submitted to it between Qatar and Bahrain, and that the Application of Qatar, as formulated on 30 November 1994, was admissible. The Court, having proceeded to an examination of the two paragraphs constituting the Doha Agreement, found that, in that Agreement, the Parties had reasserted their consent to its jurisdiction and had defined the object of the dispute in accordance with the Bahraini formula ; it further found that the Doha Agreement permitted the unilateral seisin and that it was now seised of the whole of the dispute. By two Orders, the Court subsequently fixed and then extended the time-limit within which each of the Parties could file a Memorial on the merits9/19/201621

Maritime Delimitation and Territorial Questions between Qatar and Bahrain (Qatar v. Bahrain) IIFollowing the objections raised by Bahrain as to the authenticity of certain documents annexed to the Memorial and Counter-Memorial of Qatar, the Court, by an Order of 30 March 1998, fixed a time-limit for the filing, by the latter, of a report concerning the authenticity of each of the disputed documents. By the same Order, the Court directed the submission of a Reply on the merits of the dispute by each of the Parties. Qatar having decided to disregard the challenged documents for the purposes of the case, the Court, by an Order of 17 February 1999, decided that the Replies would not rely on those documents. It also granted an extension of the time-limit for the filing of the said Replies. In its Judgment of 16 March 2001, the Court, after setting out the procedural background in the case, recounted the complex history of the dispute. It noted that Bahrain and Qatar had concluded exclusive protection agreements with Great Britain in 1892 and 1916 respectively, and that that status of protected States had ended in 1971. The Court further cited the disputes which had arisen between Bahrain and Qatar on the occasion, inter alia, of the granting of concessions to oil companies, as well as the efforts made to settle those disputes. The Court first considered the Parties claims to Zubarah. It stated that, in the period after 1868, the authority of the Sheikh of Qatar over Zubarah had been gradually consolidated, that it had been acknowledged in the Anglo-Ottoman Convention of 29 July 1913 and definitively established in 1937. It further stated that there was no evidence that members of the Naim tribe had exercised sovereign authority on behalf of the Sheikh of Bahrain within Zubarah. Accordingly, it concluded that Qatar had sovereignty over Zubarah. Turning to the Hawar Islands, the Court stated that the decision by which the British Government had found in 1939 that those islands belonged to Bahrain did not constitute an arbitral award, but that did not mean that it was devoid of legal effect. It noted that Bahrain and Qatar had consented to Great Britain settling their dispute at the time and found that the 1939 decision must be regarded as a decision that was binding from the outset on both States and continued to be so after 1971. Rejecting Qatars arguments that the decision was null and void, the Court concluded that Bahrain had sovereignty over the Hawar Islands. The Court observed that the British decision of 1939 did not mention Janan Island, which it considered as forming a single island with Hadd Janan. It pointed out, however, that in letters sent in 1947 to the Rulers of Qatar and Bahrain, the British Government had made it clear that Janan Island is not regarded as being included in the islands of the Hawar group. The Court considered that the British Government, in so doing, had provided an authoritative interpretation of its 1939 decision, an interpretation which revealed that it regarded Janan as belonging to Qatar. Accordingly, Qatar had sovereignty over Janan Island, including Hadd Janan.9/19/201622

Maritime Delimitation and Territorial Questions between Qatar and Bahrain (Qatar v. Bahrain) IIIThe Court then turned to the question of the maritime delimitation. It recalled that international customary law was the applicable law in the case and that the Parties had requested it to draw a single maritime boundary. In the southern part, the Court had to draw a boundary delimiting the territorial seas of the Parties, areas over which they enjoyed territorial sovereignty (including sea-bed, superjacent waters and superjacent aerial space). In the northern part, the Court had to make a delimitation between areas in which the Parties had only sovereign rights and functional jurisdiction (continental shelf, exclusive economic zone). With respect to the territorial seas, the Court considered that it had to draw provisionally an equidistance line (a line every point of which is equidistant from the nearest points on the baselines from which the breadth of the territorial sea of each of the two States is measured) and then to consider whether that line must be adjusted in the light of any special circumstances. As the Parties had not specified the baselines to be used, the Court recalled that, under the applicable rules of law, the normal baseline for measuring the breadth of the territorial sea was the low-water line along the coast. It observed that Bahrain had not included a claim to the status of archipelagic State in its formal submissions and that the Court was therefore not requested to take a position on that issue. In order to determine what constituted the Parties relevant coasts, the Court first had to establish which islands came under their sovereignty. Bahrain had claimed to have sovereignty over the islands of Jazirat Mashtan and Umm Jalid, a claim which had not been contested by Qatar. As to Qitat Jaradah, the nature of which was disputed, the Court held that it should be considered as an island because it was above water at high tide ; the Court added that the activities which had been carried out by Bahrain were sufficient to support its claim of sovereignty over the island. With regard to low-tide elevations, the Court, after noting that international treaty law was silent on the question whether those elevations should be regarded as territory, found that low-tide elevations situated in the overlapping area of the territorial seas of both States could not be taken into consideration for the purposes of drawing the equidistance line. That was true of Fasht ad Dibal, which both Parties regarded as a low-tide elevation. The Court then considered whether there were any special circumstances which made it necessary to adjust the equidistance line in order to obtain an equitable result. It found that there were such circumstances which justified choosing a delimitation line passing on the one hand between Fasht al Azm and Qitat ash Shajarah and, on the other, between Qitat Jaradah and Fasht ad Dibal. In the northern part, the Court, citing its case law, followed the same approach, provisionally drawing an equidistance line and examining whether there were circumstances requiring an adjustment of that line. The Court rejected Bahrains argument that the existence of certain pearling banks situated to the north of Qatar, and which were predominantly exploited in the past by Bahraini fishermen, constituted a circumstance justifying a shifting of the line. It also rejected Qatars argument that there was a significant disparity between the coastal lengths of the Parties calling for an appropriate correction. The Court further stated that considerations of equity required that the maritime formation of Fasht al Jarim should have no effect in determining the boundary line. 9/19/201623

Territorial and Maritime Dispute (Nicaragua v. Colombia) IOn 6 December 2001, the Republic of Nicaragua filed an Application instituting proceedings against the Republic of Colombia in respect of a dispute concerning a group of related legal issues subsisting between the two States concerning title to territory and maritime delimitation.In its Judgment on the preliminary objections, rendered on 13 December 2007, the Court found that it had jurisdiction to entertain the dispute concerning sovereignty over the maritime features claimed by the Parties, other than the islands of San Andrs, Providencia and Santa Catalina. The Court held that the treaty signed in 1928 between Colombia and Nicaragua (in which Colombia recognized Nicaraguas sovereignty over the Mosquito Coast and the Corn Islands, while Nicaragua recognized Colombias sovereignty over the islands of San Andrs, Providencia and Santa Catalina, and the maritime features forming part of the San Andrs Archipelago) had settled the issue of sovereignty over the islands of San Andrs, Providencia and Santa Catalina, that there was no extant legal dispute between the Parties on that question and that, therefore, the Court could not have jurisdiction over it under the American Treaty on Pacific Settlement (also known as the Pact of Bogot and invoked by Nicaragua as basis for the Courts jurisdiction in the case). On the other hand, as regards the question of the scope and composition of the rest of the San Andrs Archipelago, the Court considered that the 1928 Treaty failed to provide answers as to which other maritime features formed part of the Archipelago and thus that it had jurisdiction to adjudicate on the dispute regarding sovereignty over those other maritime features. As for its jurisdiction with respect to the maritime delimitation issue, the Court concluded that the 1928 Treaty had not effected a general delimitation of the maritime areas between Colombia and Nicaragua and that, as the dispute had not been settled within the meaning of the Pact of Bogot, the Court had jurisdiction to adjudicate upon it.THE INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE : HANDBOOK- includes map page1999/19/201624

Territorial and Maritime Dispute (Nicaragua v. Colombia) IIOn 25 February 2010, Costa Rica filed an Application for permission to intervene in the case. In its Application it contended, among other things, that [b]oth Nicaragua and Colombia, in their boundary claims against each other, claim maritime area to which Costa Rica is entitled and indicated that it wished to intervene in the proceedings as a non-party State. On 10 June 2010, the Republic of Honduras also filed an Application for permission to intervene in the case, asserting that Nicaragua, in its dispute with Colombia, had put forward maritime claims that lay in an area of the Caribbean Sea in which Honduras had rights and interests. Honduras stated in its Application that it was seeking primarily to intervene in the proceedings as a party. The Court rendered two Judgments on 4 May 2011, in which it ruled that the Applications for permission to intervene filed by Costa Rica and Honduras could not be granted. The Court noted that the interest of a legal nature invoked by Costa Rica could only be affected if the maritime boundary that the Court had been asked to draw between Nicaragua and Colombia were to be extended beyond a certain latitude southwards. However, following its jurisprudence, the Court, when drawing a line delimiting the maritime areas between the two Parties to the main proceedings, would, if necessary, end that line before it reached an area in which the interests of a legal nature of third States might be involved. The Court concluded that Costa Ricas interest of a legal nature could not be affected by the decision in the proceedings between Nicaragua and Colombia. With respect to Hondurass Application for permission to intervene, the Court found that Honduras had failed to satisfy the Court that it had an interest of a legal nature that might be affected by the decision of the Court in the main proceedings. It ruled on the one hand that, since the entire maritime boundary between Honduras and Nicaragua in the Caribbean Sea had been settled by the Judgment of the Court rendered between those two States in 2007, there were no extant rights or legal interests that Honduras might seek to protect in the settlement of the dispute between Nicaragua and Colombia. On the other hand, the Court held that Honduras could invoke an interest of a legal nature, in the main proceedings, on the basis of the 1986 bilateral treaty concluded between Honduras and Colombia, but clarified that it would not be relying on that treaty to determine the maritime boundary between Colombia and Nicaragua.9/19/201625

Territorial and Maritime Dispute (Nicaragua v. Colombia) IIIIn its Judgment rendered on the merits of the case on 19 November 2012, the Court found that the territorial dispute between the Parties concerned sovereignty over the features situated in the Caribbean Sea the Alburquerque Cays, the East-Southeast Cays, Roncador, Serrana, Quitasueo, Serranilla and Bajo Nuevo which were all above water at high tide and which were therefore islands capable of appropriation. The Court noted, however, that Quitasueo comprised only a single, tiny island, known as QS 32, and a number of low-tide elevations (features above water at low tide but submerged at high tide). The Court then observed that, under the terms of the 1928 Treaty concerning Territorial Questions at Issue between Colombia and Nicaragua, Colombia not only had sovereignty over the islands of San Andrs, Providencia and Santa Catalina, but also over other islands, islets and reefs forming part of the San Andrs Archipelago. Thus, in order to address the question of sovereignty, the Court first needed to ascertain what constituted the San Andrs Archipelago. It concluded, however, that neither the 1928 Treaty nor the historical documents conclusively established the composition of that Archipelago. The Court therefore examined the arguments and evidence not based on the composition of the Archipelago under the 1928 Treaty. It found that neither Nicaragua nor Colombia had established that it had title to the disputed maritime features by virtue of uti possidetis juris (the principle that, upon independence, new States inherit the territories and boundaries of the former colonial provinces), because nothing clearly indicated whether these features were attributed to the colonial provinces of Nicaragua or of Colombia. The Court then considered whether sovereignty could be established on the basis of State acts manifesting a display of authority on a given territory (effectivits). It regarded it as having been established that for many decades Colombia had continuously and consistently acted titre de souverain in respect of the maritime features in dispute. This exercise of sovereign authority had been public and there was no evidence that it had met with any protest from Nicaragua prior to 1969, when the dispute had crystallized. Moreover, the evidence of Colombias acts of administration with respect to the islands was in contrast to the absence of any evidence of acts titre de souverain on the part of Nicaragua. The Court also noted that, while not being evidence of sovereignty, Nicaraguas conduct with regard to the maritime features in dispute, the practice of third States and maps afforded some support to Colombias claim. The Court concluded that Colombia, and not Nicaragua, had sovereignty over the islands at Alburquerque, Bajo Nuevo, East-Southeast Cays, Quitasueo, Roncador, Serrana and Serranilla.9/19/201626

Territorial and Maritime Dispute (Nicaragua v. Colombia) IVWith respect to Nicaraguas claim for delimitation of a continental shelf extending beyond 200 nautical miles, the Court observed that any claim of continental shelf rights beyond 200 miles [by a State party to the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS)] must be in accordance with Article 76 of UNCLOS and reviewed by the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf. Given the object and purpose of UNCLOS, as stipulated in its Preamble, the fact that Colombia was not a party thereto did not relieve Nicaragua of its obligations under Article 76 of that Convention. The Court observed that Nicaragua had submitted to the Commission only Preliminary Information which, by its own admission, fell short of meeting the requirements for the Commission to be able to make its recommendations. As the Court was not presented with any further information, it found that, in this case, Nicaragua had not established that it had a continental margin that extended far enough to overlap with Colombias 200-nautical-mile entitlement to the continental shelf, measured from Colombias mainland coast. The Court was therefore not in a position to delimit the maritime boundary between the extended continental shelf as claimed by Nicaragua and the continental shelf of Colombia. Notwithstanding this conclusion, the Court noted that it was still called upon to effect the delimitation of the zone situated within 200 nautical miles of the Nicaraguan coast, where the entitlements of Colombia and Nicaragua overlapped. In order to effect the delimitation of the maritime boundary, the Court first determined what the relevant coasts of the Parties were, namely those coasts the projections of which overlapped. It found that Nicaraguas relevant coast was its whole coast, with the exception of the short stretch of coast near Punta de Perlas, and that Colombias relevant coast was the entire coastline of the islands under Colombian sovereignty, except for Quitasueo, Serranilla and Bajo Nuevo. The Court next noted that the relevant maritime area, i.e., the area in which the potential entitlements of the Parties overlapped, extended 200 nautical miles east of the Nicaraguan coast. The boundaries to the north and to the south were determined by the Court in such a way as not to overlap with any existing boundaries or to extend into areas where the rights of third States might be affected.9/19/201627

Territorial and Maritime Dispute (Nicaragua v. Colombia) VTo effect the delimitation, the Court followed the three-stage procedure previously laid down by and employed in its jurisprudence. First, it selected the base points and constructed a provisional median line between the Nicaraguan coast and the western coasts of the relevant Colombian islands opposite the Nicaraguan coast. Second, the Court considered any relevant circumstances which might have called for an adjustment or shifting of the provisional median line so as to achieve an equitable result. It observed that the substantial disparity between the relevant Colombian coast and that of Nicaragua (approximately 1:8.2), and the need to avoid a situation whereby the line of delimitation cut off one or other of the Par- ties from maritime areas into which its coasts projected, constituted relevant circumstances. The Court noted that, while legitimate security concerns had to be borne in mind in determining what adjustment should be made to the provisional median line or in what way that line should be shifted, the conduct of the Parties, issues of access to natural resources and delimitations already effected in the area were not relevant circumstances in this case. In the relevant area between the Nicaraguan mainland and the western coasts of the Alburquerque Cays, San Andrs, Providencia and Santa Catalina, where the relationship was one of opposite coasts, the relevant circumstances called for the provisional median line to be shifted eastwards. To that end, the Court determined that different weightings should be given to the base points situated on Nicaraguan and Colombian islands, namely a weighting of one to each of the Colombian base points and a weighting of three to each of the Nicaraguan base points. The Court considered, however, that extending the line thus constructed to the north or the south would not lead to an equitable result, since it would leave Colombia with a significantly larger share of the relevant area than that accorded to Nicaragua, notwithstanding the fact that Nicaraguas relevant coast was more than eight times the length of Colombias relevant coast. Moreover, it would cut off Nicaragua from the areas to the east of the principal Colombian islands into which the Nicaraguan coast projected. In the view of the Court, an equitable result was to be achieved by continuing the boundary line out to the line 200 nautical miles from the Nicaraguan coast. To the north, that line would follow the parallel passing through the most northern point of the outer limit of the 12-nautical-mile territorial sea of Roncador. To the south, the maritime boundary would first follow the outer limit of the 12-nautical-mile territorial sea of the Alburquerque and East-Southeast Cays, then the parallel from the most eastern point of the territorial sea of the East-Southeast Cays. In order to prevent Quitasueo and Serrana from falling, under those circumstances, on the Nicaraguan side of the boundary line, the maritime boundary around each of those features would follow the outer limit of their 12-nautical-mile territorial sea. Third, and finally, the Court checked that, taking account of all the circumstances of the case, the delimitation thus obtained did not create a disproportionality that would render the result inequitable. The Court observed that the boundary line had the effect of dividing the relevant area between the Parties in a ratio of approximately 1:3.44 in Nicaraguas favour, while the ratio of relevant coasts was approximately 1:8.2. It concluded that that line did not entail such disproportionality as to create an inequitable result.9/19/201628

Kasikili/Sedudu Island (Botswana/Namibia)On 29 May 1996, the Government of Botswana and the Government of Namibia notified jointly to the Registrar of the Court a Special Agreement which had been signed between them on 15 February 1996 and had entered into force on 15 May 1996, for the submission to the Court of the dispute existing between them concerning the boundary around Kasikili/Sedudu Island and the legal status of that island. The Special Agreement referred to a Treaty between Great Britain and Germany concerning the respective spheres of influence of the two countries, signed on 1 July 1890, and to the appointment on 24 May 1992 of a Joint Team of Technical Experts to determine the boundary between Namibia and Botswana around Kasikili/Sedudu Island on the basis of that Treaty and of the applicable principles of international law. Unable to reach a conclusion on the question submitted to it, the Joint Team of Technical Experts recommended recourse to a peaceful settlement of the dispute on the basis of the applicable rules and principles of international law. At a Summit Meeting held in Harare, Zimbabwe, on 15 February 1995, the Presidents of the two States agreed to submit the dispute to the Court. Taking account of the relevant provisions of the Special Agreement, the Court, by an Order dated 24 June 1996, fixed time-limits for the filing, by each of the Parties, of a Memorial and a Counter-Memorial. Those pleadings were duly filed within the time-limits fixed. The Court, in view of the agreement between the Parties, also authorized the filing of a Reply by each Party. The Replies were duly filed within the time-limits so prescribed. In its Judgment of 13 December 1999, the Court began by stating that the island in question, which in Namibia is known as Kasikili, and in Botswana as Sedudu, is approximately 3.5 sq km in area, that it is located in the Chobe River, which divides around it to the north and south, and that it is subject to flooding of several months duration, beginning around March. It briefly outlined the historical context of the dispute, then examined the text of the 1890 Treaty, which, in respect of the region concerned, located the dividing line between the spheres of influence of Great Britain and Germany in the main channel of the River Chobe. In the Courts opinion, the real dispute between the Parties concerned the location of that main channel, Botswana contending that it was the channel running north of Kasikili/Sedudu Island and Namibia the channel running south of the island. Since the Treaty did not define the notion of main channel, the Court itself proceeded to determine which was the main channel of the Chobe River around the Island. In order to do so, it took into consideration, inter alia, the depth and the width of the channel, the flow (i.e., the volume of water 168 THE INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE : HANDBOOK INT Manuel Anglais_Mise en page 1 12/09/14 10:29 Page168 carried), the bed profile configuration and the navigability of the channel. After considering the figures submitted by the Parties, as well as surveys carried out on the ground at different periods, the Court concluded that the northern channel of the River Chobe around Kasikili/Sedudu Island must be regarded as its main channel. Having invoked the object and purpose of the 1890 Treaty and its travaux prparatoires, the Court examined at length the subsequent practice of the parties to the Treaty. The Court found that that practice did not result in any agreement between them regarding the interpretation of the Treaty or the application of its provisions. The Court further stated that it could not draw conclusions from the cartographic material in view of the absence of any map officially reflecting the intentions of the parties to the 1890 Treaty and in the light of the uncertainty and inconsistency of the maps submitted by the Parties to the dispute. It finally considered Namibias alternative argument that it and its predecessors had prescriptive titles to Kasikili/Sedudu Island by virtue of the exercise of sovereign jurisdiction over it since the beginning of the century, with the full knowledge and acceptance of the authorities of Botswana and its predecessors. The Court found that, while the Masubia of the Caprivi Strip (territory belonging to Namibia) did indeed use the island for many years, they did so intermittently, according to the seasons and for exclusively agricultural purposes, without it being established that they occupied the island titre de souverain, i.e., that they were exercising functions of State authority there on behalf of the Caprivi authorities. The Court therefore rejected that argument. After concluding that the boundary between Botswana and Namibia around Kasikili/Sedudu Island followed the line of deepest soundings in the northern channel of the Chobe and that the island formed part of the territory of Botswana, the Court recalled that, under the terms of an agreement concluded in May 1992 (the Kasane Communiqu), the Parties had undertaken to one another that there should be unimpeded navigation for craft of their nationals and flags in the channels around the Island.9/19/201629

Convention on the Continental Shelf Ihttps://treaties.un.org/Pages/showDetails.aspx?objid=08000002800338fbAccession 06/11/1972/date of Notification : date of Effect 06/12/1972https://treaties.un.org/doc/Publication/UNTS/Volume%20499/volume-499-I-7302-English.pdf No. 7302. CONVENTION1 ON THE CONTINENTAL SHELF. DONE AT GENEVA, ON 29 APRIL 1958Article 1 For the purpose of these articles, the term " continental shelf " is used as referring (a) to the seabed and subsoil of the submarine areas adjacent to the coast but outside the area of the territorial sea, to a depth of 200 metres or, beyond that limit, to where the depth of the superjacent waters admits of the exploitation of the natural resources of the said areas; (b) to the seabed and subsoil of similar submarine areas adjacent to the coasts of islands.Article 2 1. The coastal State exercises over the continental shelf sovereign rights for the purpose of exploring it and exploiting its natural resources. 2. The rights referred to in paragraph 1 of this article are exclusive in the sense that if the coastal State does not explore the continental shelf or exploit its natural resources, no one may undertake these activities, or make a claim to the continental shelf, without the express consent of the coastal State. 3. The rights of the coastal State over the continental shelf do not depend on occupation, effective or notional, or on any express proclamation. 4. The natural resources referred to in these articles consist of the mineral and other non-living resources of the seabed and subsoil together with living organisms belonging to sedentary species, that is to say, organisms which, at the harvestable stage, either are immobile on or under the seabed or are unable to move except in constant physical contact with the seabed or the subsoil.

9/19/201630

Convention on the Continental Shelf IIArticle 5 1. The exploration of the continental shelf and the exploitation of its natural resources must not result in any unjustifiable interference with navigation, fishing or the conservation of the living resources of the sea, nor result in any interference with fundamental oc anographie or other scientific research carried out with the intention of open publication. 2. Subject to the provisions of paragraphs 1 and 6 of this article, the coastal State is entitled to construct and maintain or operate on the continental shelf installations and other devices necessary for its exploration and the exploitation of its natural resources, and to establish safety zones around such installations and devices and to take in those zones measures necessary for their protection. 3. The safety zones referred to in paragraph 2 of this article may extend to a distance of 500 metres around the installations and other devices which have been erected, measured from each point of their outer edge. Ships of all nation alities must respect these safety zones. 4. Such installations and devices, though under the jurisdiction of the coastal State, do not possess the status of islands. They have no territorial sea of their own, and their presence does not affect the delimitation of the territorial sea of the coastal State. No. 7302 316 United Nations Treaty Series 1964 5. Due notice must be given of the construction of any such installations, and permanent means for giving warning of their presence must be maintained. Any installations which are abandoned or disused must be entirely removed. 6. Neither the installations or devices, nor the safety zones around them, may be established where interference may be caused to the use of recognized sea lanes essential to international navigation. 7. The coastal State is obliged to undertake, in the safety zones, all appro priate measures for the protection of the living resources of the sea from harmful agents. 8. The consent of the coastal State shall be obtained in respect of any research concerning the continental shelf and undertaken there. Nevertheless the coastal State shall not normally withhold its consent if the request is submitted by a qualified institution with a view to purely scientific research into the physical or biological characteristics of the continental shelf, subject to the proviso that the coastal State shall have the right, if it so desires, to participate or to be repre sented in the research, and that in any event the results shall be published.

9/19/201631

Convention on the Continental Shelf IIIArticle 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. 3. In delimiting the boundaries of the continental shelf, any lines which are drawn in accordance with the principles set out in paragraphs 1 and 2 of this article should be defined with reference to charts and geographical features as they exist at a particular date, and reference should be made to fixed permanent identifiable points on the land.

9/19/201632

Vienna from 31 July to 23 August 1978 - resulted in the adoption of the 1978 Vienna Convention on Succession of States in respect of Treaties (the 1978 Convention). Article 40 Cases of military occupation The provisions of the present convention shall not prejudge any question that may arise in regard to a treaty from the military occupation of a territory. https://treaties.un.org/doc/Treaties/1996/11/19961106%2005-51%20AM/Ch_XXIII_02p.pdfThe 1978 Convention did not enter into force until 1996 when it achieved the necessary fifteen expressions of consent to be boundAlthough the 1978 Convention is an example of progressive development of international law, the customary rules of international law on succession of States in respect of treaties apply to most States, yet they are not reflected in the text of the 1978 Convention.Therefore, it is not a reliable guide to such rules of customary law on treaty succession. Yet, albeit its late entry into force, practice following the end of the Cold War and decisions of the International Court of Justice may now have breathed a little life into a few of its provisions (see Application of the Genocide Convention (Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Yugoslavia), I.C.J. Reports 1996, pp. 595 and 611-12 and GabkovoNagymaros Project (Hungary/Slovakia), I.C.J. Reports 1997, pp. 7 and 72). But, they are unlikely to result in many States wanting now to be parties to the 1978 Convention. So, it may remain little more than an interesting historical document. http://legal.un.org/avl/pdf/ha/vcssrt/vcssrt_e.pdf Anthony Aust British Diplomatic Service (1967-2002), retiring as Deputy Legal Adviser Legal Adviser (Counsellor) to the United Kingdom Mission to the United Nations in New York, 1988-1991

9/19/201633

The 1881 Hague Conference and the Convention to follow

The Hague Conference for the regulation of North Sea Fisheries was held in 1881, nearly 50 years before the Hague Codification Conference of 1930, and nearly every country involved with the North Sea fisheriesBelgium, Denmark, France, Germany, Norway, and Sweden, and the United Kingdomparticipated. The Conference adopted the convention the following year, and it was signed and ratified by all of these countries, with the exception of the Scandinavian states of Norway and Sweden. Since this convention set regulations concerning fishing on the high seas, defining the breadth of territorial waters was an inevitability. There was opposition between the bloc of five countriesincluding the United Kingdomthat supported territorial waters of 3 nautical miles out, and Norway and Sweden, which argued for 4 nautical miles.The provisions on islands that were accepted by all of the countries other than Norway and Sweden were adopted in 1882 and incorporated into Article II of the Decree as follows: The fishermen of each country shall enjoy the exclusive right of fishery within the distance of 3 miles from low-water mark along the whole extent of the coasts of their respective countries, as well as of the dependent islands and banks. https://www.spf.org/islandstudies/research/docs/a00010r.pdf

9/19/201634

The 1930 Hague Codificationon the Law of the SeaThe Hague Codification Conference was held in 1930 by the League of Nations in order to codify the international customary law concerning the three issues of (a) nationality, (b) territorial waters, and (c) responsibility of states for damage done in their territory to the person or property of foreigners, with around 50 countries participating in the talks. While there were opposing opinions concerning claims on the width of the territorial sea and the contiguous zone and the participants did not go so far as to adopt a convention on the territorial sea, many other provisions discussed there did later form a useful foundation for the codification conferences held after World War II.

9/19/201635

1958 Geneva Conventions on the Law of the SeaGeneva, 29 April 1958On 29 April 1958, as recorded in the Final Act (A/CONF.13/L.58, 1958, UNCLOS, Off. Rec. vol. 2, 146), the United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea opened for signature four conventions and an optional protocol: the Convention on the Territorial Sea and the Contiguous Zone (CTS): entered into force on 10 September 1964; the Convention on the High Seas (CHS): entered into force on 30 September 1962the Convention on Fishing and Conservation of the Living Resources of the High Seas (CFCLR); entered into force on 20 March 1966the Convention on the Continental Shelf (CCS); entered into force on 10 June 1964 and the Optional Protocol of Signature concerning the Compulsory Settlement of Disputes (OPSD): entered into force on 30 September 1962 States bound by the Conventions and the Protocol, are, as at 23 July 2008, respectively: for the CTS, 52; for the CHS, 63; for the CFCLR, 38; for the CCS, 58; and for the OPSD, 38. http://legal.un.org/avl/ha/gclos/gclos.html

9/19/201636

1958 Geneva Conventions on the Law of the SeaGeneva, 29 April 1958The fact that this Convention provides that the external limit of the contiguous zone can not exceed 12 miles from the baseline indicates that no breadth beyond 12 miles was seen as acceptable.The United Nations General Assembly consideredthe territorial seatogether with that of fishing limits. Among the various proposals, ranging from 3 to 200 miles maximum limits, a proposal for a 6 miles breadth of the territorial sea plus a 6 miles fishery zone immediately adjoining it was accepted in the Committee of the Whole but did not obtain the necessary two-thirds majority in plenary.

9/19/201637

UNCLOS I, 1958 in Geneva.-four conventions that entered into force in 1966 -to UNCLOS III: 1982 United Nations Convention entered into force in 1994 Article 10 (CTS): 1. An island is a naturally-formed area of land, surrounded by water, which is above water at high tide. 2. The territorial sea of an island is measured in accordance with the provisions of these articles. Article 1 (CCS): For the purpose of these articles, the term continental shelf is used as referring (a) to the seabed and subsoil of the submarine areas adjacent to the coast but outside the area of the territorial sea, to a depth of 200 metres or, beyond that limit, to where the depth of the superjacent waters admits of the exploitation of the natural resources of the said area; (b) to the seabed and subsoil of similar submarine areas adjacent to the coasts of islands.

9/19/201638

Convention on the Territorial Sea and the Contiguous Zone 1958PART I. TERRITORIAL SEA SECTION I. GENERAL Article 1 1. The sovereignty of a State extends, beyond its land territory and its internal waters, to a belt of sea adjacent to its coast, described as the territorial sea. Article 2 The sovereignty of a coastal State extends to the air space over the territorial sea as well as to its bed and subsoil. SECTION III. RIGHT OF INNOCENT PASSAGE Subsection A. Rules applicable to all ships Article 14 1.Subject to the provisions of these articles, ships of all States, whether coastal or not, shall enjoy the right of innocent passage through the territorial sea. 2.Passage means navigation through the territorial sea for the purpose either of traversing that sea without entering internal waters, or of proceeding to internal waters, or of making for the high seas from internal waters. 3.Passage includes stopping and anchoring, but only insofar as the same are incidental to ordinary navigation or are rendered necessary by force majeure or by distress. 4.Passage is innocent so long as it is not prejudicial to the peace, good order or security of the coastal State. Such passage shall take place in conformity with these articles and with other rules of international law. 5.Passage of foreign fishing vessels shall not be considered innocent if they do not observe such laws and regulations as the coastal State may make and publish in order to prevent these vessels from fishing in the territorial sea. 6.Submarines are required to navigate on the surface and to show their flag.http://www.gc.noaa.gov/documents/8_1_1958_territorial_sea.pdf

9/19/201639

Convention on the Territorial Sea and the Contiguous Zone 1958PART II. CONTIGUOUS ZONE Article 24 1. In a zone of the high seas contiguous to its territorial sea, the coastal State may exercise the control necessary to: (a) Prevent infringement of its customs, fiscal, immigration or sanitary regulations within its territory or territorial sea; (b) Punish infringement of the above regulations committed within its territory or territorial sea. 2.The contiguous zone may not extend beyond twelve miles from the baseline from which the breadth of the territorial sea is measured. 3.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 contiguous zone 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 the two States is measured.Done at Geneva on 29 April 1958. Entered into force on 10 September 1964. United Nations, Treaty Series, vol. 516, p. 205.

9/19/201640

Territorial Waters 1982 UN ConventionTerritorial watersor aterritorial seaas defined by the 1982 United Nations On the Law of the Sea ,is a belt of coastalwaters extending at most 12 Nautical Miles (22.2 Km; 13.8mi) from thebaseline (usually the mean low-water mark) of a coastal state. The territorial sea is regarded as the sovereign territory of the state, although foreign ships (both military and civilian) are allowed innocant pasage through it, ortransit passage transit passage for straits: this sovereignty also extends to the airspace over and seabed below. Adjustment of these boundaries is called, in international law,maritime delimitation.The term "territorial waters" is also sometimes used informally to refer to any area of water over which a state has Jurisdiction, including internal waters, the contiguous zone, the exclusive economic zone and potentially the continental shelf."The median line:referred to in the preceding paragraph shall be the line every point of which is equidistant from the nearest point on the baseline and the nearest point on the baseline from which the breadth of the territorial sea pertaining to the foreign coast which is opposite to the coast of Japan is measured. http://www.un.org/Depts/los/LEGISLATIONANDTREATIES/PDFFILES/JPN_1996_Law.pdf

9/19/201641

DECLARATIONS MADE UPON RATIFICATION AND ACCESSION Volume 2167, 1-3 7924UNITED KINGDOM - ROYAUME-UNI "1 .The United Kingdom understands that the terms 'geographical particularities', 'specific 'characteristics of the sub-region or region', socio-economic geographical and environmental factors', 'natural characteristics of that sea' or any other similar terms employed in reference to a geographical region do not prejudice the rights and duties of States under international law. 2. The United Kingdom understands that no provision of this Agreement may be interpreted in such a way as to conflict with the principle of freedom of the high seas, recognized by international law. 3. The United Kingdom understands that the term 'States whose nationals fish on the high seas' shall not provide any new grounds for jurisdiction based on the nationality of persons involved in fishing on the high seas rather than on the principle of flag State jurisdiction. 4. The Agreement does not grant any State the right to maintain or apply unilateral measures during the transitional period as referred to in article 21 (3). Thereafter, if no agreement has been reached, States shall act only in accordance with the provisions provided for in articles 21 and 22 of the Agreement. p.264

9/19/201642

Article 21 Laws and regulations of the coastal State relating to innocent passageArticle 21 Laws and regulations of the coastal State relating to innocent passage 1. The coastal State may adopt laws and regulations, in conformity with the provisions of this Convention and other rules of international law, relating to innocent passage through the territorial sea, in respect of all or any of the following: (a) the safety of navigation and the regulation of maritime traffic; (b) the protection of navigational aids and facilities and other facilities or installations; (c) the protection of cables and pipelines; (d) the conservation of the living resources of the sea; (e) the prevention of infringement of the fisheries laws and regulations of the coastal State; (f) the preservation of the environment of the coastal State and the prevention, reduction and control of pollution thereof; (g) marine scientific research and hydrographic surveys; (h) the prevention of infringement of the customs, fiscal, immigration or sanitary laws and regulations of the coastal State. 2. Such laws and regulations shall not apply to the design, construction, manning or equipment of foreign ships unless they are giving effect to generally accepted international rules or standards. 3. The coastal State shall give due publicity to all such laws and regulations. 4. Foreign ships exercising the right of innocent passage through the territorial sea shall comply with all such laws and regulations and all generally accepted international regulations relating to the prevention of collisions at sea.

9/19/201643

Article 22:Sea lanes and traffic separation schemes in the territorial seaArticle 22: Sea lanes and traffic separation schemes in the territorial sea :1. The coastal State may, where necessary having regard to the safety of navigation, require foreign ships exercising the right of innocent passage through its territorial sea to use such sea lanes and traffic separation schemes as it may designate or prescribe for the regulation of the passage of ships. 2. In particular, tankers, nuclear-powered ships and ships carrying nuclear or other inherently dangerous or noxious substances or materials may be required to confine their passage to such sea lanes. 3. In the designation of sea lanes and the prescription of traffic separation schemes under this article, the coastal State shall take into account: (a) the recommendations of the competent international organization; (b) any channels customarily used for international navigation; (c) the special characteristics of particular ships and channels; and (d) the density of traffic. 4. The coastal State shall clearly indicate such sea lanes and traffic separation schemes on charts to which due publicity shall be given.

9/19/201644

PART VIII PEACEFUL SETTLEMENT OF DISPUTESPART VIII PEACEFUL SETTLEMENT OF DISPUTES Article 27 Obligation to settle disputes by peaceful means States have the obligation to settle their disputes by negotiation, inquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, resort to regional agencies or arrange- ments, or other peaceful means of their own choice. Article 28: Prevention of disputes: States shall cooperate in order to prevent disputes. To this end, States shall agree on efficient and expeditious decision-making procedures within subregional and regional fisheries management organizations and arrangements and shall strengthen existing decision-making procedures as necessary.Article 29: Disputes of a technical nature:Where a dispute concerns a matter of a technical nature, the States concerned may refer the dispute to an ad hoc expert panel established by them. The panel shall confer with the States concerned and shall endeavour to resolve the dispute expeditiously without recourse to binding procedures for the settlement of disputes.

9/19/201645

Article 30 Procedures for the settlement of disputesArticle 30 Procedures for the settlement of disputes 1. The provisions relating to the settlement of disputes set out in Part XV of the Convention apply mutatis mutandis to any dispute between States Parties to this Agreement concerning the interpretation or application of this Agreement, whether or not they are also Parties to the Convention. 2. The provisions relating to the settlement of disputes set out in Part XV of the Convention apply mutatis mutandis to any dispute between States Parties to this Agreement concerning the interpretation or application of a subregional, regional or global fisheries agreement relating to straddling fish stocks or highly migratory fish stocks to which they are parties, including any dispute concerning the conservation and management of such stocks, whether or not they are also Parties to the Convention. 3. Any procedure accepted by a State Party to this Agreement and the Convention pursuant to article 287 of the Convention shall apply to the settlement of disputes under this Part, Volume 2167, 1-37924 unless that State Party, when signing, ratifying or acceding to this Agreement, or at any time thereafter, has accepted another procedure pursuant to article 287 for the settlement of disputes under this Part. 4. A State Party to this Agreement which is not a Party to the Convention, when signing, ratifying or acceding to this Agreement, or at any time thereafter, shall be free to choose, by means of a written declaration, one or more of the means set out in article 287, paragraph 1, of the Convention for the settlement of disputes under this Part. Article 287 shall apply to such a declaration, as well as to any dispute to which such State is a party which is not covered by a declaration in force. For the purposes of conciliation and arbitration in accordance with Annexes V, VII and VIII to the Convention, such State shall be entitled to nominate conciliators, arbitrators and experts to be included in the lists referred to in Annex V, article 2, Annex VII, article 2, and Annex VIII, article 2, for the settlement of disputes under this Part. 5. Any court or tribunal to which a dispute has been submitted under this Part shall apply the relevant provisions of the Convention, of this Agreement and of any relevant subregional, regional or global fisheries agreement, as well as generally accepted standards for the conservation and management of living marine resources and other rules of international law not incompatible with the Convention, with a view to ensuring the conservation of the straddling fish stocks and highly migratory fish stocks concerned.

9/19/201646

INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE AEGEAN SEA CONTINENTAL SHELF CASE Judgments, Advisory opinions and Orders Aegean Sea Continental Shelf (Greecev.Turkey) 10.08.1976 (a)Application Instituting Proceedings REQUEST FOR THE INDICATION OF INTERIM MEASURES OF PROTECTION SUBMITTED BY THE GOVERNMENT OF GREECE 1. On 1 November 1973 a decision was published in the Officia1 Turkish Gazette granting the Turkish State Petroleum Company (TPAO) the right to carry out exploration for petroleum in 27 regions of the Aegean continental shelf east of a line starting at the mouth of the Evros River in the north and extending southwards and to the West of the Greek isfands of Chios and Psara. The area covered by these perrnits encroached upon the continental shelf of the Greek islands of Samothrace, Limnos, Aghios Eustratios, Lesbos, Chios, Psara and Antipsara. A copy of the Gazette and the accornpanying map is set forth in Annex 1. 2. On 7 February 1974 the Government of Greece addressed a Note Verbale to the Government of Turkey in which it questioned the validity of the. perrnits issued by the Turkish Government and reserved the sovereign rights of Greece over the continental shelf and the subsoil of the islands of Samothrace, Limnos, Ahios Eustratios, Lesbos, Chios, Psara and Antipsara for the purpose of exploring it and exploiting its natural resources

http://www.icjcij.org/docket/index.php?p1=3&p2=3&code=gt&case=62&k=81&p3=0

9/19/201647

Aegean Sea Continental Shelf (Greecev.Turkey) 10.08.1976 (b)5. The Official Turkish Gazette of 18 July 1974 contained details of the grant of new exploration permits for petroleurn in the Aegean Sea to the 4 AEGEAN SEA Turkish Petroleum Company. These new permits extended the area of the original grants to the Turkish Petroleum Company further west of the Greek islands of Samothrace, Aghios Eustratios, Lesbos, Psara, Antipsara and Chios. Furthermore, permits were granted for the first time in the southern Aegean to the north west and West of the islands of lkaria and the Dodecanese group of islands, including the island of Rhodes to the south. A copy of the Gazette and the accompanying map, as well as a map showing the area covered by successive exploration permits, issued by the Turkish Government, are included in Annex 1.

9/19/201648

Aegean Sea Continental Shelf (Greecev.Turkey) 10.08.1976 (c)14. On 30 September 1975 the Government of Turkey addressed a Note to the Government of Greece in which it recalled that at the meeting in Rome mentioned in paragraph 12 the Turkish Foreign Minister had said that it would not be in the interests of the two countries to submit the dispute to the lnternational Court of Justice without first attempting rneaningful negotiations, while the Greek Foreign Minister had argued that the dispute be taken directly to the International Court of Justice. The Turkish Foreign Minister added that "some aspects of the continental shelf concept are yet to be established. For this reason the principles to be applied can best be determined between the countries concerned." The Turkish Government reiterated its point of view that the best method of solving thesedifferences was bilateral negotiations leading to a just and fair agreement based on equitable principles.

9/19/201649

Aegean Sea Continental Shelf (Greecev.Turkey) 10.08.1976 (d)20. On 22 May 1976 the Government of Greece addresscd a Note to the Government of Turkey, in which it recalled the position stated in its Note of 19 Decernber 1975, and the fact that .the correspondence between the two Governments had revealed the existence of a dispute which, consistent with the exchangcs of Notes between them, ought to be submitted to the lnternational Court of Justice. The Note stated that at the Berne meeting the Greek dclegation had emphasized three fundamental legal points, namely : (a) the territorial and political unity of the continental and insular parts of the Greek State; (b) the existence of a continental shelf appurtenant to the Greek islands concerned; (c) the application of the rule of the median line between opposite coasts as the line of delimitalion in the seabed between the Greek islands and the Turkish territories. The Turkish delegation, the Note recalled, had stated that the islands of Limnos, Chios. Samos, Lesbos, Aghios Eustratios, lkaria and Kos could not have a continental shel bccause they were mere protuberances of the Turkish continental shelf. The Greek Note concluded by saying that negotiations could not lake place in derogation from the norms of international law concerning the division of the continental shelf, and by expressing the hope that the next meeting would yield a more promising exchange of views, failing which, the Note said, the only course would be for the two Governments to proceed to the drafting of a special agreement to refer the rnatter to the International Court, conformably with engagements taken between them.

9/19/201650

Aegean Sea Continental Shelf (Greecev.Turkey) 10.08.1976 (e)29. The Government of Greece contends that al1 the islands undcr the sovercignty of Greece and in particular the islands of Samothrace, Limnos, Aghios Eustratios, Lesbos, Chios, Psara, Antipsara, Sanios, lkaria and al1 the islands of the Dodecanese group (Patn~os, Leros, Kafimnos, Kos, Astyprilaia, Nisiros, Tilos. Simi. Chalki, Rhodes, Karpathos, etc.) hereinaftcr called the lslands, which lie upon the continental shelf that extends beneath the Aegean Sea between Grecce and Turkey, are an intcgral part of Greek territory which is entitled to the portion of this contincntal shelf which appcrtains to thcin; and that by virtue of the operation of the principles of international law concerning the continental shelf, the following legal rules apply, naniely : (1) That, taking into account the territorial and political unity of Greece, Grccce has exclusive rights to exploration and exploitation of the portions of the contincnta! shelf appcrtaining to the said Islands; and that no rcscrirch niay bc carried out without the consent of Greece. (2) That sincc the said Islands are opposite the Coast of Turkey, the delimitation of the portions of the contincntal shelf which appcrtain respectively to Grccce and Turkey is to be encted by rcfercnce to the point at which respcctively the natioral prolongations of the Grcck and Turkish territorics;whether insular or contincntal meet and overlap; and that that point can only be the niedian fine betwccn the said Islands and such baselines as are lawfully establishcd for the dclimitation of the Turkish territorial sea, so that an eqtial division of the prirticular arca is achieved.(p.10 of the ICJ decision )

9/19/201651

JURISDICTION Aegean Sea Continental Shelf (Greecev.Turkey) 10.08.1976 (f)32. The present dispute is submitted to the Court on the following basis: (1) Article 17 of the General Act for the Pacific Settlement of lnternational Disputes, 1928, read together with Articles 36 (1) and 37 of the Statute of the Court. Respectively on 14 September 193 1 and 26 June 1934, Greece and Turkey acceded to this instrument, which is still in force for both of them. The texts of these accessions were accompanied by declarations which are irrelcvant to the present case. These texts are set forth in Annexes IX and X. (2).The joint communiqu of Brussels of 31 May 1975, which followed previous exchange of views, States that the Prime Ministers of Greece and Turkey have decided that the problems dividing the two countries should be resolved peacefully "et, au sujet du plateau continental de la nier Egce, par la Cour internationale de La Haye". The two Governments thereby jointly and severally accepted the jurisdiction of the court in the present matter, pursuant to Article 36(1) of the Statute of the Court.

9/19/201652

JURISDICTION Aegean Sea Continental Shelf : Greecev.Turkey 10.08.1976 (g)RESERVING TS RIGHTS TO SUPPLEMENT OR AMEND ITS REQUEST, AND SUBJECT TO THE SUBSEQUENT PRESENTATION