Maritime De-Limitation

Introduction…
⚫ Coastal State’s jurisdiction over the marine
spaces is defined on the basis of distance
from the coast.
⚫ Overlapping of Jurisdiction of 2 or more
states.
⚫ It brings predictability & Flexibility in Law.
⚫ Change & Continuity in maritime Delimitation.
Maritime De-limitation
⚫ The process of establishing lines separating the spatial
ambit of coastal state jurisdiction over maritime spaces
where the legal title overlaps with that of the another
state.
⚫ Distinction Between Maritime Limits & Maritime De-
limitation
⚫ The Novel role of International Law

⚫ ICJ in Gulf of Maine Case-

“ No maritime de-limitation between states with opposite or

adjacent coasts may be effected unilaterally by one of
those states”
⚫ Hence, Maritime-Delimitation is always international by
nature.
Typology of maritime De-
limitation
⚫ De-limitation of the territorial Sea- Art.12 of
TSC, 1958
⚫ Contiguous Zone- Art. 24 of TSC, 1958
⚫ Continental Shelf- Art 6 of the Convention of
Continental Shelf 1958 & Art 83 of LOSC,
1982
⚫ EEZ/FZ – Art. 74 of the LOSC, 1982
Delimitation of the Territorial
Sea- Art. 12 of TSC, 1958
⚫ “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
territorial sea beyond the median line every point of
which is equidistance from the nearest points on the
baselines from which the breadth of the territorial sea of
each of the two states is measured. The Provisions of
this paragraph shall not apply, however, where it is
necessary by reason of historic title or other special
circumstances to delimit the territorial seas of the two
states is a way which is at variance with this provision.”
Three Ingredients
⚫ Agreement
⚫ Equidistance- Median Line
⚫ Special Circumstances
Delimitation of the Continental Shelf- Art 6 of the
Convention on the Continental Shelf, 1958

1. Where the 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 point 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 the boundary line is justified by special
circumstances, the boundary shall be determined by the application of
the principle of equidistance from the nearest point of the baselines
from which the breadth of the territorial sea of each state is measured.
De-limitation of the Contagious
Zone- Art. 24 (3) of TSC, 1958
⚫ Where the coasts of the states are opposite
or adjacent to each other, neither two of the
States is entitled failing agreement between
them to the contrary, to extend its Contagious
Zone beyond the median line every point of
which is equidistant from the nearest points
on the baselines from the breadth of the
territorial sea of the two states is measured.
THE LAW OF THE SEA
CONVENTION , 1982
⚫ De-limitation of Continental shelf & EEZ-Art
74 & 83 of LOSC, 1982
“The Delimitation of the exclusive economic
zone/ Continental Shelf between states with
opposite and adjacent coasts shall be effected
by agreement on the basis of international law,
as referred to in Art. 38 of the Statute of the
International Court of Justice, in order to
achieve equitable solutions”.
Judicial Development of
Maritime Delimitation
⚫ The First Phase – 1969- 1992
⚫ ‘Result Oriented Equity Approach’

⚫ ICJ in North Sea Continental Shelf Case-

1969
“ De-limitation must be the object of the
agreement between the states & such should
be in accordance with equitable principles”
⚫ Anglo-French Continental Shelf Case-
1977-Arbitration Tribunal- Single line-
Equitable justice rule
⚫ Tunisia/Libya Case, 1982 ICJ Held-
“The result of the application of equitable
principles must be equitable. It is however, the
result which is pre-dominant. The principles are
subordinate to the goal. The equitableness of a
principle must be assessed in the light of its
usefulness to achieve equitable result.”
⚫ Gulf of Maine Case, 1984 – ICJ- Doctrine of
Single Maritime Boundary
⚫ The Second Phase- 1993 to present
⚫ Greenland/Jan Mayen Judgment-1993-

⚫ Doctrine of Corrective Equity

a) Drawing of a median line- Equidistance Rule

b) Achieve equitable results

c) Test of proportionality – proportionate

distribution
⚫ Three Stage Process of De-limitation

⚫ Nicaragua V. Honduras-2007-ICJ- Angle Bi-

sector method of De-limitation
Delimitation: Equidistance line
method
Delimitation: Angle-bisector
method
Nicaragua v. Honduras (2007)