Search

This is the second part of a two-part article surveying state practice regarding Disputed and Unresolved Maritime Boundary Delimitations or Other Land or Maritime Disputes under the Rules of the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf (CLCS). It reviews basic principles and the interpretation of the 1982 UN Law of the Sea Convention and the CLCS Rules. As the 2006 Barbados/Trinidad and Tobago Award and the 2012 ITLOS Bangladesh v. Myanmar Judgment reaffirmed, the CLCS Recommendations must in no way prejudice exist-ing and prospective boundary delimitations, nor must they prejudice other land or maritime disputes. All practical means of giving effect to such "without prejudice" principles are care-fully analysed. Part One covers Latin America and the Wider Caribbean, Northeast and Southeast Asia, and the South Pacific. The present Part Two covers South Asia and the Middle Last, East Africa-Indian Ocean, South Africa, West Africa and North Africa. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

During the decade-long Qatar v. Bahrain proceedings, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) rendered two Judgments on jurisdiction and admissibility (1994–1995), followed by its decision not to rely on the 82 Qatar documents challenged by Bahrain (1999), and by Judgment on the merits (2001). This article surveys how these complex proceedings led to settlement of a long-standing dispute in the Arabian/Persian Gulf to the satisfaction of both parties and how have they enriched the contributions of the Court to the development of international law. The contributions of the two Qatar v. Bahrain (Jurisdiction and Admissibility) Judgments, including their Opinions, are highlighted in the context of important issues pertaining to the interpretation of treaties and various aspects of the jurisdiction conferred upon the ICJ by a "framework agreement" (as distinct from a compromis). The analysis of the Qatar v. Bahrain (Merits) Judgment, including its Opinions, substantiates the significant consolidation and further development—in continuation of the formidable jurisprudence of the ICJ and other tribunals, notably the Eritrea/ Yemen Arbitral Tribunal—of the principles and rules governing the acquisition of territorial sovereignty and maritime boundary delimitation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Eritrea-Yemen Arbitral Tribunal unanimously resolved in its two awards the disputed territorial sovereignty over the Red Sea islands (Phase I, 1998) and the delimitation of an international maritime boundary (Phase II, 1999) in one of the most strategically sensitive regions of the world. This article surveys the progress made by each of the awards in the development of principles and rules of international law in the respective subject matters of the awards. While due attention is paid to the consistency of the awards with the preceding decisions of the International Court of Justice and arbitral tribunals concerning acquisition of territorial sovereignty and equitable maritime delimitation, distinct features, such as rejection by the 1998 Eritrea-Yemen Award of the existence of a principle of reversion of a newly independent state to the ancient title to territory, are also examined. The analysis of the 1999 Award focuses on the complex decision-making process which led the Arbitral Tribunal to equitable delimitation of the Eritrea-Yemen international maritime boundary by means of a single allpurpose boundary. The resultant line substantiates the governing role of equidistance between opposite states. The Tribunal also reappraised the role of resource-related factors and the principle of proportionality. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Highlights the contributions of the International Court of Justice on the law of the sea and the law of the United Nations. Application of doctrine of equitable principles on maritime delimitation; Regard for equity infra legem; Provisional boundary line between Denmark and Norway.

Presents information on a systematic survey of decisions given by the International Court of Justice, under the presidency of Sir Robert Yewdall Jennings. Indepth look at three cases (Guinea Bissau versus Senegal, Gulf of Fonseca, and Denmark versus Norway); Analytical analysis of procedural aspects of the case law referring to Jennings; Reference to the cases (Qatar/Bahrain and Cameroon versus Nigeria).

This article explores the unique role of the ICJ as the principal judicial organ of the United Nations in the development of the law of the sea as part of the global system of peace and security, during thePresidency of Judge Stephen M. Schwebel (United States) in the busiest triennium in the Court's history (1997-2000). The new style of governance brought by President Schvebel to the Court is appraised against the background of an 'intrinsic' authority and paramount functionsperformed by the ICJ as the world's most senior international court and the only truly universal judicial body of general jurisdiction, as well as that of the continuously inter-active influence of the Court and the International Law Commission. The article surveys the law-of-the-sea-related cases of the Court in the context of an ongoing follow-up to the Overall Review and Appraisal of the UNCED Agenda 21 in the critical areas of environmental protection, international fisheries and navigation, equitable maritime delimitation and territorial questions, and international institutions. The inaugural practice of ITLOS and the awards of the two Arbitral Tribunals, of which President Schwebel was a member, are taken into due account. The article concludes that the Court will undoubtedly continue to further explore its unique role, as importantly reinforced in the triennium 1997-2000, in the years to come. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]