Maritime Boundary Disputes and Article 298 of UNCLOS

2018 ◽  
Vol 3 (2) ◽  
pp. 232-273 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christine Sim
Keyword(s):  
Dispute Settlement ◽  
Safety Valve ◽  
Safety Net ◽  
Third Party ◽  
Arbitral Tribunal ◽  
Peaceful Resolution ◽  
Boundary Disputes ◽  
Maritime Boundary

Maritime boundary disputes pose the most dangerous potential for conflict between States. Article 298 of UNCLOS was designed as a safety valve to allow exclusion of sensitive disputes arising out of contested maritime boundaries—but also to provide a safety net for peaceful resolution of all UNCLOS disputes. This paper offers views on four questions which remain unresolved. First, may States exclude obligations of restraint and cooperation under Articles 74(3) and 83(3) of UNCLOS from compulsory dispute settlement by an Article 298 declaration? Second, for submission to compulsory conciliation, what criteria should be used to decide if the dispute arose subsequent to the entry into force of UNCLOS? Third, does a court, arbitral tribunal or conciliation commission have jurisdiction to consider ‘mixed disputes’ involving land sovereignty or other rights? Fourth, what is the meaning of “shall, by mutual consent”—when conciliation fails to reach an agreement, are the parties bound to refer their dispute back to compulsory third party dispute settlement under section 2 of Part XV of UNCLOS?

Diplomacy and the challenges of resolving maritime boundary disputes in West Africa: Weighing the options in the case of Ghana and its immediate neighbours

2021 ◽  
Vol 33 (4) ◽  
pp. 773-790
Author(s):  
Frederick Boamah
Keyword(s):  
West Africa ◽  
United Nations ◽  
Secondary Data ◽  
Third Party ◽  
Peaceful Resolution ◽  
Boundary Disputes ◽  
Maritime Boundary ◽  
International Dispute ◽  
Peace And Security ◽  
Global Peace

Over the years, the international community has ensured the peaceful resolution of conflict among states. This is reflected in the Charter of the United Nations, where peaceful resolution of international disputes is promoted to ensure global peace and security. The use of diplomacy and pacific settlement of international dispute has been promoted among conflicting states due to its perceived inherent merits. This research explores the significance of diplomacy in resolving maritime boundary disputes in West Africa, placing emphasis on the disputes between Ghana and its neighbours. It does this by looking at secondary data, as well as the unpublished meeting minutes of the parties, to assess diplomacy and other pacific channels of conflict resolution as opposed to third-party dispute processes. The paper highlights diplomacy as the most appropriate means to resolve maritime boundary disputes in West Africa, particularly those confronting Ghana and its neighbours.

Progress in International Maritime Boundary Delimitation Law

1994 ◽  
Vol 88 (2) ◽  
pp. 227-256 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jonathan I. Charney
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Dispute Settlement ◽  
Ad Hoc ◽  
Third Party ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Boundary Disputes ◽  
International Court ◽  
Maritime Boundary ◽  
Maritime Boundary Delimitation

Judgments of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) and awards of ad hoc arbitration tribunals carry special weight in international maritime boundary law. On its face, the international maritime boundary law codified in the 1982 Convention on the Law of the Sea is indeterminate. For the continental shelf and the exclusive economic zone, the legal obligation of coastal states is to delimit the boundary “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.” The article on the delimitation of maritime boundaries in the territorial sea is no more determinative despite the fact that it makes direct references to the equidistant line, special circumstances and historic title. In spite of this indeterminacy, if not because of it, coastal states have found that third-party dispute settlement procedures can effectively resolve maritime boundary delimitation disputes. As a consequence, there are more judgments and awards on maritime boundary disputes than on any other subject of international law, and this trend is continuing.

Dispute Settlement Under the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea: Survey for 2007

2008 ◽  
Vol 23 (4) ◽  
pp. 601-642 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robin Churchill
Keyword(s):  
Dispute Settlement ◽  
The Other ◽  
Law Of The Sea ◽  
Arbitral Tribunal ◽  
International Tribunal ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
Maritime Boundary ◽  
The Law

AbstractThis is the fourth of a projected series of annual surveys reviewing dispute settlement under the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea. 2007 was the busiest year for dispute settlement in the law of the sea for some time. The main developments under Part XV of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea were the award of the arbitral tribunal in the Guyana/Suriname Case and two prompt-release-of-vessel judgments by the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea. Outside the framework of the Convention, the International Court of Justice gave judgments in two maritime boundary cases—one on the merits (Nicaragua v. Honduras) and the other on jurisdiction (Nicaragua v. Colombia).

Dispute Settlement under the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea: Survey for 2004

2006 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-14
Author(s):  
Robin Churchill
Keyword(s):  
Dispute Settlement ◽  
Law Of The Sea ◽  
International Tribunal ◽  
Boundary Disputes ◽  
Maritime Boundary ◽  
Caribbean Area ◽  
The Caribbean ◽  
The Law

AbstractThis is the first of a projected series of annual surveys reviewing dispute settlement under the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea generally, rather than focusing purely on the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea. The main developments during 2004 were the referral of two maritime boundary disputes in the Caribbean area to arbitration under Annex VII and a prompt release of vessel judgment by the ITLOS in the Juno Trader case.

Maritime Boundary Delimitation Beyond 200 Nautical Miles: The International Judiciary and the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf

2015 ◽  
Vol 84 (4) ◽  
pp. 580-604 ◽  
Author(s):  
Øystein Jensen
Keyword(s):  
Continental Shelf ◽  
Crucial Role ◽  
Dispute Settlement ◽  
Third Party ◽  
Law Of The Sea ◽  
Maritime Boundary ◽  
Legal Challenges ◽  
The Law ◽  
Maritime Boundary Delimitation ◽  
The Relationship

This article examines the legal significance of the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf in third-party dispute settlement regarding delimitation of the continental shelf beyond 200 nautical miles from the territorial sea baselines. Recent international jurisprudence indicates that the relationship between the procedures of the 1982 un Convention on the Law of the Sea involving the Commission and third-party dispute settlement is marked by lack of clarity, bringing procedural and substantive legal challenges in the view of the international judiciary. The procedures involving the Commission may influence a dispute settlement body’s decision to exercise its jurisdiction to delimit continental shelf areas beyond 200 nautical miles. Also in terms of continental shelf entitlement—determining what is legally a “continental shelf” and what is not—the Commission plays a crucial role.

Territorial Sovereignty Issues in Maritime Disputes: A Jurisdictional Dilemma for Law of the Sea Tribunals

2012 ◽  
Vol 27 (1) ◽  
pp. 59-95 ◽  
Author(s):  
Irina Buga
Keyword(s):  
Subject Matter ◽  
Dispute Settlement ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Law Of The Sea ◽  
Territorial Sovereignty ◽  
Boundary Disputes ◽  
Maritime Boundary ◽  
Maritime Disputes ◽  
The Law

Abstract It is unclear whether Law of the Sea tribunals under the Law of the Sea Convention (LOSC, or the Convention) have jurisdiction to determine maritime boundary disputes involving concurrent land sovereignty issues. The text of the Convention and case law are silent in this respect. The only reference is in LOSC Article 298(1)(a)(i), which allows States to make declarations exempting maritime delimitations from compulsory dispute settlement, excluding concurrent territorial questions even from conciliation. However, it leaves unclear whether concurrent land sovereignty issues are also excluded in the absence of such declarations. There are indications that LOS tribunals may be able to decide ancillary land issues so long as these do not constitute the ‘very subject-matter’ of the dispute, or rely on an alternative jurisdictional basis. The question of competence over mixed disputes may be less extensive in effect than is often believed. States should not avoid initiating proceedings based on the view that LOS tribunals might not ultimately exercise jurisdiction.

Dispute Settlement under the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea: Survey for 2006

2007 ◽  
Vol 22 (4) ◽  
pp. 463-483 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robin Churchill
Keyword(s):  
Dispute Settlement ◽  
European Court Of Justice ◽  
Law Of The Sea ◽  
Arbitral Tribunal ◽  
The Third ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
Maritime Boundary ◽  
Boundary Case ◽  
The Law

AbstractThis is the third of a projected series of annual surveys reviewing dispute settlement under the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea. The main developments during 2006 were the award of the arbitral tribunal in the Barbados/Trinidad and Tobago Maritime Boundary Case and the judgment of the European Court of Justice relating to the MOX Plant case. No new cases were brought during the year.

scholarly journals Third-Party Interest in Arbitration Dispute Settlement Process

2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (2) ◽  
pp. 5281-5286
Keyword(s):  
Dispute Settlement ◽  
Contract Law ◽  
Civil Code ◽  
Third Parties ◽  
Third Party ◽  
Arbitral Tribunal ◽  
The World ◽  
Disclosure Of Information ◽  
Potential Losses ◽  
Civil Dispute

The existence of a Third Party in the Civil Code, in general, is a party to be taken into account not to suffer harm to a civil dispute. However, things are different in Arbitration Law which is a special branch of the Civil Code. Moving from the principle of secrecy, there is a disclosure of information on disputes in the world of commerce, which is characterized by variants of Contract Law in the world of commerce so as to make the potential losses that arise for other parties against the same trade object . Arbitration Law in Indonesia has ignored the interests of interested third parties by relying on the entry of such parties on the basis of voluntary parties and the approval of the Arbitral Tribunal.

scholarly journals The Law of the Sea, International Courts, and Judicialization

AJIL Unbound ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 115 ◽  
pp. 373-377
Author(s):  
Donald R. Rothwell
Keyword(s):  
Continental Shelf ◽  
Dispute Settlement ◽  
Third Party ◽  
Law Of The Sea ◽  
International Courts ◽  
Maritime Boundary ◽  
Timor Leste ◽  
The Law ◽  
Secondary Mechanism ◽  
Maritime Boundary Delimitation

Dispute settlement is entrenched in the 1982 UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) through the Part XV compulsory mechanisms. It is also reflected in UNCLOS's indication that delimitation of the exclusive economic zone or the continental shelf is to be by way of agreement between coastal states. While maritime boundary delimitation may be viewed as dominated by judicialization, that is not reflected in UNCLOS. The maritime boundary delimitation project unleashed by UNCLOS gave primacy to delimitation by agreement, with third party settlement under Part XV the secondary mechanism. The 2018 Australia/Timor-Leste maritime boundary settlement highlights how, even when Part XV third party mechanisms were used, the coastal states were able to reach agreement on a maritime boundary by negotiation, without recourse to judicialization.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document