| Summary/Abstract |
State practice reveals that the main reason states conclude maritime delimitation agreements is their desire to reap the benefits accruing from offshore natural resources, especially hydrocarbons. However, international jurisprudence has not expressly taken nongeographical factors into consideration in delimitation cases, even though it has also not totally disregarded them. Since such factors individually have been in the judges’ minds, it is suggested that if a state is capable of proving that these factors indicate the existence of fundamental interests in an undelimited area, all of those should be contemplated in accumulation and form a distinct concept, namely, the “predominant interest.” In a nutshell, the concept analyzed in this article refers to the aggregation of a gamut of nongeographical factors that, although they have not been taken into consideration separately in delimitation cases, tend to evince the existence of fundamental interests, which form a broader one, namely, the “predominant interest.” This article proposes that the “predominant interest” concept could be utilized by international courts and tribunals in order to check the equitableness of a maritime boundary at the second stage of the delimitation process concerning the continental shelf/exclusive economic zone (EEZ), after relevant circumstances predicated on geographical factors have been examined. In any case, though, it is asserted that this concept should not be invoked so as to justify excessive claims. To the contrary, it should be applied in support of contentions made in good faith with a view to safeguarding the essential interests of a state.
|