| Srl | Item |
| 1 |
ID:
106152
|
|
|
| 2 |
ID:
159405
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
In the 2017 Maritime Delimitation in the Indian Ocean Case, the International Court of Justice stated that “in appropriate circumstances” maritime delimitation claims beyond 200 nm may be admitted before the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf issues a recommendation. This is a deviation from the Court's previous approach in the 2016 Nicaragua v. Colombia (Preliminary Objections) Case. This article follows the evolution of the international case law with respect to the admissibility of outer continental shelf delimitation claims absent a final and binding outer limit, and highlights the positive implications of the International Court's most recent formula.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 3 |
ID:
100040
|
|
|
| 4 |
ID:
146275
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
THE ARCTIC REGION attracts the attention of a far larger number of states than those that are adjacent to it. The massive melting of Arctic ice provides broad opportunities for opening new maritime routes and for prospecting for natural resources, and the development of energy and trade; it is also fraught with a serious conflict in the Arctic. The international community has already appreciated the economic attractiveness of the Arctic, and states began to argue about the redrawing of Arctic boundaries. Arctic and non-Arctic states are becoming increasingly involved in the efforts to review them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 5 |
ID:
192893
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
The governments of Canada and Denmark signed a historic agreement on Hans Island on 14 June 2022. Although most of the agreement was devoted to the resolution of the Hans Island dispute, it also settled other issues. We argue that provisions on mobility and the continental shelf in the Labrador Sea give rise to interesting precedents that could have far-reaching effects for northerners. The agreement on enhanced mobility could represent a first step in a more ambitious process of facilitating Inuit mobility across Nunavut and Greenland, while the settlement on the continental shelf illustrates how states could collaborate on other continental shelf cases, including the continental shelf in the Central Arctic Ocean.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 6 |
ID:
152202
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
Although most provisions of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea are regarded customary international law and the United States views most of its provisions as such, the outsider status of the United States causes problems in some areas, especially concerning the continental shelf beyond 200 nautical miles. This article asks whether it is possible for the United States to establish the outer limits of its continental shelf beyond 200 nautical miles in line with international law without becoming a state party to the convention, and if that is possible, how could the United States proceed?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 7 |
ID:
163091
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
Seafloor highs can be grouped into three legal categories: (i) oceanic ridges; (ii) submarine ridges; and (iii) submarine elevations. The Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf recognizes that the foot of slope serves as the qualifier to distinguish oceanic ridges from the two other categories. The Commission established a view that the sole qualifier for a submarine ridge is its morphological continuity with the continental margin. A submarine elevation needs also to share geological characteristics with the rest of the continental margin. Recent recommendations suggest that the Commission may have complicated its view in this respect.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 8 |
ID:
106154
|
|
|
| 9 |
ID:
110842
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2012.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
The Beaufort Sea maritime boundary dispute has traditionally been understood as involving a wedge-shaped area of maritime space that extends to a distance of 200 nautical miles north of the terminus of the Canada-United States border between the Yukon Territory and Alaska. However, new data collected in pursuit of establishing the limits of the extended continental shelf in the region show that the two countries' seabed resource rights may stretch far beyond the 200-nautical-mile limit of the exclusive economic zone. Significantly, at approximately 200 nautical miles from shore, the U.S.-claimed equidistance line crosses the line claimed by Canada, which follows the 141° W meridian, meaning that the legal positions of the two countries if simply extended beyond the EEZ would appear to favor the other party. This article explores how the United States and Canada might seek to reformulate their legal positions to resolve the dispute. Though these reformulated positions might not reduce the area in dispute, they will clarify it and potentially enable the parties to either delimit a single maritime boundary or choose to implement one of a number of creative solutions to the dispute that are outlined in the article.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 10 |
ID:
142477
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
In 2014, the South African government announced Operation Phakisa in order to stimulate the country's blue economy. Operation Phakisa's strong focus on maritime economic matters ignores two unresolved issues in respect of South Africa's maritime economy and maritime diplomacy, namely the country's extended continental shelf claim. If successful in its claim, South Africa's territory will increase significantly (thus a 10th province) and thus its security and economic opportunities and challenges. The latter includes the exploration and exploitation of extended shelf resources such as oil and gas, gas hydrates, seabed mining, and marine genetic resources. As very little legal precedent and state practice exists in respect of the actual delimitation of the extended continental shelf, South Africa's claims, which overlaps with that of its neighbours Mozambique and Namibia, could contributes to significant insecurity between these states. The paper concludes with some policy recommendations to address the overlapping claims, and promote an Indian Ocean–South Atlantic dialogue on oceans governance and maritime security cooperation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 11 |
ID:
167516
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
Western Sahara’s coastal waters have become contentious because of seabed petroleum exploration and fisheries undertaken pursuant to treaties between Morocco and the European Union, Japan, and Russia. These activities have been protested by the territory’s government-in-exile, the Saharawi Arab Democratic Republic. In 2017 Morocco announced its intention to adopt legislation to create an exclusive economic zone (EEZ) on the territory’s coast. This article considers the status of Saharan coastal waters in the circumstances of decolonization and occupation. The obligations on states interested in exploring and extracting Saharan ocean resources are considered and are argued to be restrictive regardless of the status of the territory’s coastal waters and recognition of a Saharawi state.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 12 |
ID:
131368
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2014.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
This article considers the law of maritime delimitation as applied by the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea in the 2012 Bangladesh v. Myanmar case. The dispute concerned the delimitation of the maritime boundary between the two states in the northern part of the Bay of Bengal. The decision demands a particular examination since it was the first delimitation dispute decided by the Tribunal. The article traces how the ITLOS applied and developed the methodology of maritime delimitation. It also analyzes the ascertainment of a true nature of international instruments as well as unilateral acts of states before international courts and tribunals.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 13 |
ID:
108593
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2011.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
This article addresses several questions pertaining to Canada's extended continental shelf in the Arctic Ocean. How well is Canada positioned to meet the 2013 timeline? How are the current practices of the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf likely to impact Canada's submission? What concerns does Article 82 of the 1982 UN Convention on the Law of the Sea pose for Canada? The article concludes that Canada is well positioned to meet the 2013 deadline, but that the commission is ill-prepared to provide a timely response. Article 82 presents a particularly thorny problem as the details on which such arrangements must be based will not be fully known until commercial production begins, which is decades away.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 14 |
ID:
128282
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2014.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
This article addresses maritime boundary delimitation concerning the continental shelf beyond 200 nautical miles. The focal point is how the foot of the continental slope can be used as the point of departure in drawing the provisional equidistance line in outer continental shelf boundary delimitations between neighboring states. The article examines the strength and weaknesses of this approach and asks whether the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea indirectly rejected this approach in the 2012 Bangladesh v. Myanmar Case.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 15 |
ID:
187410
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
The extension of coastal states’ jurisdiction over seas in the twentieth century significantly increased the maritime area of overlapping entitlements. The Baltic Sea is a textbook example of such competing claims. In principle, the two main avenues for a coastal state to resolve its dispute are to either conclude a delimitation agreement or lodge the case with an international court or tribunal. This article analyzes the Delimitation Agreement between Denmark and Poland concerning the Baltic Sea south of the island of Bornholm. The states were divided as to how to apportion the maritime zone of 3,500 km2, where the economic zones of Denmark and Poland had not been delimited for several dozen years. The agreed single maritime boundary split the disputed area into unequal parts. The settlement of the maritime dispute coincided temporally with Poland and Denmark’s plans to build a natural gas pipeline at the bottom of the Baltic Sea, which probably prompted the two states to put an end to their maritime boundary dispute. The law of the sea provides that the delimitation of maritime zones between states with opposite or adjacent coasts is effected by agreement on the basis of international law in order to achieve an equitable solution. The purpose of this article is to show that (energy) security issues may prompt a resolution of a maritime boundary dispute, and to analyze the Polish–Danish Agreement in the light of the principles governing the maritime delimitation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 16 |
ID:
145658
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
This article identifies the key aspects of the Partial Revised Submission of the Russian Federation with respect to continental shelf areas beyond 200 nautical miles in the Arctic Ocean. It focusses on pro- cedural and substantive legal issues, including how seafloor highs were legally classified and how Russia used referenced “sector lines” to determine the outer limits of its shelf.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 17 |
ID:
135220
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
For Canada, establishing sovereignty over its continental shelf resources has been a law of the sea priority since the Second World War. Large quantities of oil, gas, and minerals are contained in the seabed; hence, there is a strong economic imperative to establish coastal state jurisdiction. Historically, instead of taking unilateral actions, as many coastal states have, Canada has preferred multilateral channels. At the First and Second Conferences on the Law of the Sea, the Seabed Committee, and the Third Conference on the Law of the Sea, which produced the Convention on the Law of the Sea, Canada was a strong, effective advocate of coastal state rights. The convention’s provisions are highly advantageous to coastal states. Canada has incorporated these rights into its legislation, ratified the convention, spent over a decade mapping the seabed, and, in December 2013, filed a submission with the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|