The delimitation of the continental shelf beyond 200 nautical miles is a comparatively new subject in the law of maritime delimitation. In this regard, three issues need further consideration: (i) entitlements to the continental shelf beyond 200 nautical miles, (ii) the relationship between the CLCS and an international court or tribunal, and (iii) the methodology.(a) EntitlementsAbove all other aspects, an international court or tribunal must examine whether the Parties have overlapping entitlements to the continental shelf beyond 200 nautical miles. In the Bangladesh/Myanmar, Bangladesh/India and Ghana/Côte d'Ivoire cases, international tribunals accepted that the Parties had entitlements to the continental shelf beyond 200 nautical miles on the basis of the existence of agreement between the Parties and/or submissions of information to the CLCS. However, the particular circumstances as shownby the unique nature of the Bay of Bengal will not exist in other regions. Furthermore, there is no guarantee that the Parties in dispute will always agree on the existence of entitlements to the continental shelf beyond 200 nautical miles. Where no agreement exists in this matter, an international court or tribunal may encounter difficulties. In the Nicaragua/Colombia case, for instance, Colombia claimed that there are no areas of extended continental shelf within this part of the Caribbean Sea. The ICJ, in its judgment of 2012, refrained from delimitation of the continental shelf boundary beyond 200 nautical miles on the grounds that Nicaragua had not established that it has a continental margin that extends far enough to overlap with Colombia's 200-nautical-mile entitlement to the continental shelf, measured from Colombia's mainland coast. In 2013, however, Nicaragua instituted new proceedings against Colombia with regard to the delimitation of the continental shelf beyond 200 nautical miles from the Nicaraguan coast. The Court, in its judgment of 2016 (Preliminary Objections), noted that Nicaragua provided the CLCS with the ‘final' information required in Article 76(8) of the LOSC. The vote was tied, eight votes to eight, but by the President's casting vote Nicaragua's request was admitted, concerning the precise course of the maritime boundary between Nicaragua and Colombia in the areas of the continental shelf which appertain to each of them beyond the boundaries determined by the Court in its judgment of 19 November 2012. (b) The Relationship Between the CLCS and an International Court or TribunalThe next issue concerns the relationship between the CLCS and an international court or tribunal. In this regard, international tribunals emphasise the difference between delineation under Article 76 and delimitation under Article 83 of the LOSC. For instance, ITLOS in the Bangladesh/Myanmar case ruled:There is a clear distinction between the delimitation of the continental shelf under article 83 and the delineation of its outer limits under article 76. Under the latter article, the Commission is assigned the function of making recommendations to coastal States on matters relating to the establishment of the outer limits of the continental shelf, but it does so without prejudice to delimitation of maritime boundaries. The function of settling disputes with respect to delimitation of maritime boundaries…
You must be Register or logged in to view full content, high resolution maps, charts, pdf and more.
