PERSPECTIVE OF INTERNATIONAL LAW ON MARITIME DISPUTE: CASE BETWEEN KENYA AND SOMALIA

The research analysed the maritime dispute between Kenya and Somalia under the international law perspective. Both states have been experiencing maritime disputes over maritime boundaries of more than 100,000 sq km of seabed in the waters of the Indian Ocean. They began to clash after Somalia accusing Kenya of illegally granting exploration rights to resources in the waters to multinational companies, Total and Eni. As Kenya declared, the waters of the East African Coast are one of the hottest oil exploration prospects in the world, and the contested area has hydrocarbon reserves. The research method is normative legal research. Accordingly, the nature of the research was descriptive-qualitative with data collection techniques by conducting a literature study. The research shows that maritime boundary dispute has worsened diplomatic relations between Kenya and Somalia. Prior to bringing the case to the International Court of Justice (ICJ), the two states agreed to resolve the dispute through bilateral negotiations. However, the case was still unsettled. Therefore, Somalia decided to bring the case before the Court.

Download Full-text

Progress in International Maritime Boundary Delimitation Law

The American Journal of International Law ◽

10.2307/2204098 ◽

1994 ◽

Vol 88 (2) ◽

pp. 227-256 ◽

Cited By ~ 16

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.

Download Full-text

Immunities and Criminal Proceedings; (Equatorial Guinea v. France)

International Law Reports ◽

10.1017/ilr.2020.5 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 191 ◽

pp. 219-373

Keyword(s):

International Law ◽

Customary Law ◽

Vienna Convention ◽

Diplomatic Relations ◽

International Court Of Justice ◽

State Immunity ◽

Optional Protocol ◽

Court Of Justice ◽

International Court ◽

Settlement Of Disputes

International Court of Justice — Provisional measures — Diplomatic relations — Immunity of State officials and State property — Prima facie jurisdiction — United Nations Convention on Transnational Organized Crime, 2000 (“Palermo Convention”) — Optional Protocol to Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations concerning the Compulsory Settlement of Disputes, 1961 — Plausibility — Article 22 of Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, 1961 — Inviolability of diplomatic premises — Whether building located at 42 Avenue Foch could plausibly be regarded as housing diplomatic mission of Equatorial Guinea — Irreparable prejudice — Urgency — Link between provisional measures requested and rights sought to be protected International Court of Justice — Jurisdiction — Palermo Convention — Whether references to customary international law incorporate those rules of customary law into the Convention — Sovereign equality of States — Whether dispute regarding alleged breach of customary law principle within jurisdiction of the Court under the Palermo Convention — Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, Optional Protocol — Dispute regarding status of buildings claimed as premises of diplomatic mission International Court of Justice — Admissibility — Abuse of process — Abuse of rights — Whether reasons not to exercise jurisdiction under Optional Protocol to the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations — Matter for preliminary objections — Whether exceptional circumstances existing — Whether Application inadmissible on that basis — Abuse of rights — Whether ground of inadmissibility when establishment of rights claimed properly a matter for merits Treaties — Palermo Convention — Subject matter of dispute — Procedural preconditions to Court’s jurisdiction under Article 35(2) of Palermo Convention — Scope of jurisdiction ratione materiae under Palermo Convention — Article 4 of Palermo Convention — Incorporation of customary rules of international law on State immunity by reference to principles of sovereign equality, territorial integrity and non-intervention in internal affairs of other States — Alleged overextension of jurisdiction by France in implementing provisions of Palermo Convention 220Diplomatic relations — Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, 1961 — Optional Protocol to Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations concerning the Compulsory Settlement of Disputes, 1961 — Subject matter of dispute — Procedural preconditions to Court’s jurisdiction under Articles II and III of Optional Protocol — Meaning of “premises of the mission” under Article 1(i) of Vienna Convention — Whether definition of “premises of the mission” falling within scope ratione materiae of Vienna Convention — Whether a dispute concerning inviolability of the building at 42 Avenue Foch State immunity — Jurisdictional immunity — Head of State immunity — Vice-President of State accused of misappropriation of funds and money laundering by authorities of another State — Whether entitled to immunity — Basis for any claim to immunity — Customary international law — Whether incorporated into Palermo Convention

Download Full-text

III. Land and Maritime Boundary Between Cameroon and Nigeria (Cameroon v Nigeria:: Equatorial Guinea Intervening), Merits, Judgment of 10 October 2002

International and Comparative Law Quarterly ◽

10.1093/iclq/52.3.788 ◽

2003 ◽

Vol 52 (3) ◽

pp. 788-797 ◽

Cited By ~ 3

Author(s):

Malcom D Evans ◽

JG Merrills

Keyword(s):

Federal Republic ◽

International Law ◽

Equatorial Guinea ◽

International Court Of Justice ◽

Court Of Justice ◽

International Court ◽

Maritime Boundary ◽

The Republic ◽

Eventual Outcome ◽

Significant Bearing

On 10 October 2002 the International Court of Justice gave its decision on the merits in the case brought by the Republic of Cameroon against the Federal Republic of Nigeria over their land and maritime boundary. The judgment, which addresses a number of issues of general international law concerning maritime boundaries and territorial sovereignty, as well as providing a detailed treatment of the particular facts, concludes a case that began in 1994 and has had an unusual history. As this background had a significant bearing on the eventual outcome, a brief recapitulation may be useful.

Download Full-text

The Pending Maritime Delimitation in the Cameroon v Nigeria Case: A Piece in the Jigsaw Puzzle of the Gulf of Guinea

The International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law ◽

10.1163/157180800x00073 ◽

2000 ◽

Vol 15 (2) ◽

pp. 163-192

Author(s):

Nuno Sérgio Marques Antunes

Keyword(s):

Federal Republic ◽

International Law ◽

Equatorial Guinea ◽

Gulf Of Guinea ◽

Jigsaw Puzzle ◽

International Court Of Justice ◽

Court Of Justice ◽

International Court ◽

Maritime Boundary ◽

Rights And Interests

AbstractOn 29 March 1994, Cameroon seized the International Court of Justice of a dispute against Nigeria. Inter alia, Cameroon requested the Court "to proceed to prolong the course of its maritime boundary with the Federal Republic of Nigeria up to the limit of the maritime zones which international law places under their respective jurisdictions". Considering that its rights and interests might be affected by the Court's decision on this matter, Equatorial Guinea filed an Application for Permission to Intervene in the Cameroon v Nigeria case. By an order of 21 October 1999 the Court granted Equatorial Guinea's request. This article seeks to examine the question of maritime delimitation as it is presented to the Court in the Cameroon v Nigeria case, taking into account the geographical setting that characterises the Gulf of Guinea, an area where the potential maritime entitlements of five states overlap considerably.

Download Full-text

THE ROLE OF INTERNATIONAL LAW AND UN INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE IN RESOLVING AEGEAN DISPUTE

Constitutional State ◽

10.18524/2411-2054.2021.44.245076 ◽

2021 ◽

pp. 132-138

Author(s):

E. R. Akhmedova

Keyword(s):

Continental Shelf ◽

International Law ◽

Aegean Sea ◽

International Court Of Justice ◽

Interstate Relations ◽

Court Of Justice ◽

International Court ◽

International Boundary ◽

Maritime Disputes

The articles states that the delimitation of the continental shelf in the Aegean has been the main contentious issue between Greece and Turkey for the past 50 years. It has been unsuccessfully brought before the International Court of Justice, has been repeatedly discussed in the Security Council and has given rise to at least one delimitation agreement. The key problem is Greece would like to resolve the Aegean Sea dispute by the International Court of Justice but if Turkey accepts Greek offer, which is to refer the Aegean Sea dispute before the International Court of Justice, it may not only impair the Turkish sovereignty over her territorial sea and continental shelf but also endanger the Turkish mainland security because of the Greek re-militarized operations. The purpose of this article is to study the practice of resolving maritime disputes by the international judicial bodies. Turkey is one of the 16 countries which have not signed or ratified the Convention on the Law of the Sea. International law offers various means which Greece and Turkey can employ in order to deal with the Aegean Sea dispute. The parties can establish an international boundary via delimitation, agree on a moratorium of petroleum operations or enter into a Joint Development Agreement. However, reality often imposes obstacles which law cannot surmount. All options require good faith and a mutual spirit of compromise between the concerned parties. Without an agreement, unilateral acts or claims have no legal value. The International Court of Justice has settled a number of maritime disputes in the course of its work. Despite its decisions on some cases were made not in favor of the disputing parties the role of the UN International Court of Justice in resolving interstate disputes and maintaining international law and order is quite significant. The procedure in the UN International Court of Justice is quite effective and allows it to perform the tasks set by the world community based on international legal instruments governing interstate relations in the field of international maritime law.

Download Full-text

ALTERNATIF PENYELESAIAN SENGKETA WILAYAH LAUT INDONESIA-MALAYSIA

Yustisia Jurnal Hukum ◽

10.20961/yustisia.v2i1.11080 ◽

2013 ◽

Vol 2 (1) ◽

Author(s):

Ayub Torry Satriyo Kusumo ◽

Handojo Leksono

Keyword(s):

Dispute Settlement ◽

Literature Study ◽

International Court Of Justice ◽

Court Of Justice ◽

International Court ◽

Maritime Boundary ◽

Equity Principle ◽

Border Dispute ◽

The Unclos ◽

Mutual Agreement

AbstractThis study discusses alternative resolutions on maritime boundary dispute between Indonesia and Malay- sia. It was based on a legal research, which used statutes and case approach. The research materials were collected by literature study and analyzed by applying the interpretation analysis technique.The result shows that the alternative resolutions of Indonesia-Malaysia border dispute can be carried out through several mechanisms. First, by referring to the UNCLOS 1982, through Bilateral Mutual Agreement on drawing an equidistant line using the equity principle and considering relevant circumstances. Second, by means of ASEAN; and third, by means of International Court of Justice mechanism regarding the equitable principle and relevant circumstances.Keywords: the outermost islands, border management, maritime dispute settlement, archipelagic state ABSTRAKPenelitian ini membahas alternatif penyelesaian sengketa batas maritim antara Indonesia dan Malaysia. Kajian ini berdasarkan penelitian hukum dengan menggunakan pendekatan undang-undang dan pendekatan kasus. Pengumpulan bahan hukum melalui studi kepustakaan dan dianalisis dengan teknik analisis interpretasi hukum. Hasil pembahasan menunjukkan alternatif penyelesaian sengketa batas wilayah Indonesia-Malaysia dapat dilakukan dengan beberapa cara. Pertama, mengacu pada UNCLOS 1982 melalui Bilateral Mutual Agree- ment dalam menarik garis sementara yang menggunakan prinsip sama jarak dan mempertimbangkan faktor yang relevan, kedua, melalui mekanisme ASEAN, dan ketiga, melalui mekanisme Mahkamah Internasional dengan mengedepankan equitable principle dan relevant circumstances.Kata kunci : Pulau-pulau terluar, pengelolaan batas wilayah, penyelesaian sengketa maritim, negara kepulauan

Download Full-text

Delimitation Issues

Continental Shelf Limits ◽

10.1093/oso/9780195117820.003.0027 ◽

2000 ◽

Author(s):

Chris M. Carleton

Keyword(s):

Continental Shelf ◽

International Law ◽

Transitional Period ◽

International Court Of Justice ◽

International Court ◽

Maritime Boundary ◽

State Practice ◽

Final Agreement ◽

Maritime Boundary Delimitation ◽

Practical Nature

In the previous chapters, we have dealt primarily with the situation where a State's continental shelf and any extension are adjacent to international waters. However, there are a number of cases where the continental shelf (or its extension) of one State abuts that of another State. This chapter examines that particular situation and considers its implications in delimitation issues. The UNCLOS articles 74 and 83 provide for the delimitation of the EEZ and continental shelf between opposite and adjacent States respectively. Article 83 states: . . . 1. The delimitation of the Continental Shelf between States with opposite or adjacent coasts shall be effected by agreement on the basis of international law, as referred to in Article 38 of the Statute of the International Court of Justice, in order to achieve an equitable solution. 2. If no agreement can be reached within a reasonable period of time, the States concerned shall resort to the procedures provided for in Part XV. 3. Pending agreement as provided for in paragraph 1, the States concerned, in a spirit of understanding and co-operation, shall make every effort to enter into provisional arrangements of a practical nature and, during this transitional period, not to jeopardize or hamper the reaching of the final agreement. Such arrangements shall be without prejudice to the final delimitation. 4. Where there is an agreement in force between the States concerned, questions relating to the delimitation of the Continental Shelf shall be determined in accordance with the provisions of that agreement. The wording of article 74 is identical in all respects, except for continental shelf, read exclusive economic zone. These articles provide that the coastal States concerned shall reach agreement on the basis of international law in order to achieve an equitable solution. The Convention provides no further substantive guidance concerning the delimitation of maritime boundaries beyond the territorial sea. Where neighboring coastal States are adjacent to each other or opposite within 400 M of each other, a potential maritime boundary overlap exists. There is considerable State practice and jurisprudence on the matter of maritime boundary delimitation within 200 M of a coastal State's territorial sea baseline.

Download Full-text

Maritime Delimitation in the Indian Ocean

The American Journal of International Law ◽

10.1017/ajil.2017.86 ◽

2017 ◽

Vol 111 (3) ◽

pp. 725-731 ◽

Cited By ~ 2

Author(s):

Beatrice I. Bonafé

Keyword(s):

Indian Ocean ◽

Dispute Settlement ◽

Alternative Methods ◽

International Court Of Justice ◽

Court Of Justice ◽

International Court ◽

Maritime Boundary ◽

The Indian Ocean

On February 2, 2017, the International Court of Justice (ICJ or Court) delivered a judgment rejecting preliminary objections to its jurisdiction in Maritime Delimitation in the Indian Ocean. The underlying contentious case between Somalia and Kenya concerns the establishment of a single maritime boundary between the two states. The decision on preliminary objections provides important insights on the Court's interpretation of optional clause declarations that include a reservation for alternative methods of dispute settlement.

Download Full-text

Man, Land and Sea: Local Populations in Territorial and Maritime Disputes before the International Court of Justice

The Law and Practice of International Courts and Tribunals ◽

10.1163/15718034-12341438 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 20 (1) ◽

pp. 30-53

Author(s):

Yusra Suedi

Keyword(s):

Potential Role ◽

International Court Of Justice ◽

Local Populations ◽

Court Of Justice ◽

Boundary Disputes ◽

International Court ◽

Maritime Boundary ◽

Maritime Disputes ◽

The Impact

Abstract The International Court of Justice routinely resolves territorial and maritime boundary disputes between States. Such disputes often carry repercussions for the lives and livelihoods of local populations living on the territories of the State litigants. This analysis seeks to examine the extent to which State litigants’ concerns for the impact of maritime disputes or territorial disputes on their local populations are factored into the Court’s decision-making process. It also seeks to identify reasons for the Court’s approach in such disputes, and to explore the potential role of the principle of equity in such contexts.

Download Full-text

Unpalatable Decisions By International Court Of Justice (ICJ) And Palatable Solutions By Islamic International Law (siyar)

UUM Journal of Legal Studies ◽

10.32890/uumjls.7.2016.4634 ◽

2016 ◽

Author(s):

Muhammad Naguib Abdul Malik

Keyword(s):

International Law ◽

Islamic Law ◽

The Other ◽

Customary Law ◽

International Court Of Justice ◽

Joint Development ◽

Court Of Justice ◽

International Court ◽

Maritime Boundary ◽

The Icj

This article demonstrates that the cases decided by the ICJ and the arbitration tribunals are judge made law and are not derived from the rules of customary law. Judge made law, as enunciated by the ICJ and the arbitration tribunals are very general and imprecise. The decisions made by the ICJ and the arbitration tribunals beget unpredictability or unexpected results. Normally, state parties are not happy with the decision made by the ICJ and the arbitration tribunals and the discontented states are unable to take any actions as state parties need to comply with the decision of the ICJ. In this Article, two (2) cases, one in South America and the other one in Africa, were discussed in detail. The outcome of these two (2) cases is not palatable to some state parties. Since the decisions are not predictable and the outcome is not palatable to some state parties, this Article looks at possible solutions which are being offered in International Islamic Law (Siyar). Keywords: Islamic International Law (Siyar), International Court of Justice (ICJ), Judge Made Law, Maritime Boundary Delimitations, Unpredictable Results, The Principle of Joint Administration, The Principle of Joint Development.

Download Full-text