Professional Documents
Culture Documents
S
DELIMITATION OF MARITIME BOUNDARIES
DELIMITATION OF MARITIME
BOUNDARIES
Regarding the delimitation of the territorial sea
between States with opposite or adjacent coasts,
neither of them is entitled to extend its territorial sea
beyond the median line every point of which is
equidistant from the nearest points on the baselines
of each of them, unless they agree to do so, or if
historic title or other special circumstances make it
necessary to delimit the territorial seas in other ways.
DELIMITATION OF MARITIME
BOUNDARIES
The delimitation of the EEZ and continental shelf
between States with opposite or adjacent coasts
must be done by agreement on the basis of
international law. Pending this they may make
provisional arrangements of a practical nature,
and they must not jeopardize or hamper the
reaching of a final agreement. If no agreement
can be reached within a reasonable period of time,
the parties shall resort to peaceful means of dispute
settlement.
In the North Sea Continental Shelf Cases it was held that the
equidistance method did not represent general international law.
since then, certain equitable principles have been recognized as
guidelines for delimitation:
DELIMITATION OF MARITIME
BOUNDARIES
Art. 6 of the Continental Shelf Convention
provides for a single technique for continental shelf
delimitation (a median for maritime areas between
opposite coasts, and a lateral equidistance line for
coasts of adjacent States). This method is inspired by
and derives from this equitable criterion: that the
equitable solution, at least prima facie, is an equal
division of the areas of overlap of the continental
shelves of the two States. However the applicability of
this method is subject to the condition that there are no
EQUITABLE CRITERIA
There has been no systematic definition of the
equitable criteria for use in international maritime
delimitation. The essential fact to remember is that the
criteria are not rules of law and therefore mandatory in
the different situations, but "equitable", or even
"reasonable", criteria, and that what international law
requires is that recourse be had in each case to the
criterion, or the balance of different criteria, appearing
to be most appropriate to the concrete situation.
ADJACENT V. OPPOSITE
Art. 6 contemplate 2 distinct hypothetical situations. In
appreciating the appropriateness of the equidistance method as
a means of achieving an equitable solution, regard must be had
to the difference between a 'lateral' boundary between adjacent
States and a 'median' boundary between 'opposite' States." The
coasts of two States may be adjacent at certain places and
opposite at others (as in this case). On this latter hypothesis,
difficulties might arise of a practical nature in particular since
every effort should be made to prevent the partial relationship of
adjacency from ultimately predominating over the partial
relationship of oppositeness, or vice-versa. It might become
apparent that adjustments were necessary for this purpose, or
even recourse to a different method.
THE DELIMITATION
FIRST SEGMENT
The practical method to be applied must be a
geometrical one based on respect for the geographical
situation of the coasts between which the delimitation
is to be effected, and at the same time suitable for
producing a result satisfying the criterion for the
division of disputed areas. Thus the equidistance
method isnnt used, but the method of drawing
perpendiculars. Accordingly, one may justifiably draw
from point A two lines respectively perpendicular to the
two basic coastal lines. These perpendiculars form, at
point A, on one side an acute angle of about 82' and on
SECOND SEGMENT
Stage one.
This involves the determination of the median line.
Remember, the choice of method is essentially
dependent on geography. In this case (given the
rectangular shape of the area and the quasi-parallelism
between the lines used in the delimitation, and the fact
that the coasts are opposite), the application of any
method of geometrical origin can in practice only result
in the drawing of a median delimitation line. Such a line
SECOND SEGMENT
Stage two.
The ratio between the coastal fronts of the Parties on the Gulf of
Maine as is thus 1.38 to 1. This ratio should be reflected in the
location of the second segment of the delimitation line. The
appropriate method should be to apply the ratio selected to a
line drawn across the Gulf where the coasts of Nova Scotia and
Massachusetts are nearest to each other. The presence of some
islands and isles must also be considered. The central segment
of the delimitation line will correspond, over its entire length,
with the corrected median line as so established. It will begin
where this line intersects, within the Gulf, the bisector drawn
THIRD SEGMENT
This is the longest portion. This is the segment which lies
outside and over against the Gulf of Maine. It is obvious that the
only kind of practical method which can be considered for this
purpose is a geometrical method - the drawing of a
perpendicular to the closing line of the Gulf. In conclusion, taking
point A as a fixed point and assigning letter B to the meetingpoint between the first two segments as above defined, letter C
to the meeting-point between the second and third segments on
the closing line of the Gulf, and letter D to the point where the
first segment reaches, to seaward, the last place on its path
where the claims of the two Parties overlap, the delimitation line
fixed between the maritime jurisdictions of Canada and the US
will be the line successively connecting points A, B, C and D.