| 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.
|