No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 11 February 2022
This article is a rejoinder to Dr. Massimo Lando’s ‘Stability of maritime boundaries and the challenge of geographical change’ which proposes that positive international law offers no legal basis for the delimitation of fluctuating boundaries and discusses the many complexities involved in the delimitation and management of such boundaries. This rejoinder delves deeper into the main point of contention: the legal basis for fluctuating boundaries. It argues that coastal states have an inherent entitlement to a territorial sea and that Article 15 of The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) entails a default rule for the establishment of provisional fluctuating boundaries. This limit is not necessarily a strict median line because it may be adjusted by reference to special circumstances. Furthermore, the lack of explicit reference to provisional arrangements in UNCLOS Article 15 should not be read as an indication that there are no provisional boundaries in the absence of boundary agreements.
This article further argues that there are judicial precedents for fluctuating boundary-segments. The Nicaragua v. Honduras decision left a segment of the territorial sea un-delimited, resulting in a partially fluctuating boundary, until otherwise agreed. Moreover, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) explicitly established a mobile boundary-segment in Costa Rica v. Nicaragua but as highlighted by Dr. Lando, this was done with the permission of the parties. Much depends on the claims brought by disputing parties and their stance on fluctuating boundaries but this decision demonstrated the ICJ’s willingness to employ fluctuating boundaries in response to coastal instability.
1 S. Árnadóttir, ‘Fluctuating boundaries in a changing marine environment’, (2021) 34 LJIL 471–87.
2 M. Lando, ‘Stability of maritime boundaries and the challenge of geographical change’, in this issue, doi: 10.1017/S0922156522000061.
3 Section 2.
4 Maritime Delimitation in the Caribbean Sea and the Pacific Ocean (Costa Rica v. Nicaragua) and Land Boundary in the Northern Part of Isla Portillos (Costa Rica v. Nicaragua) (Judgment), [2018] ICJ Rep. 139, para. 82.
5 M. Lando, supra note 2.
6 See UNCLOS Art. 77(3) and J. Noyes, ‘The Territorial Sea and Contiguous Zone’, in D. R. Rothwell et al. (eds.) The Oxford Handbook of the Law of the Sea (2015), 91, 94.
7 ILC, ‘Summary Record of the 335th meeting’ (27 April 1956) 9. See further discussion in S. Árnadóttir, Climate Change and Maritime Boundaries: Legal Consequences of Sea Level Rise (2021), 44.
8 UNCLOS Arts. 3, 4, 33(2), 48, 57, 76(1) and (4).
9 UNCLOS Art. 15.
10 In the case of continental shelf limits beyond 200 nm see UNCLOS Art. 76(8).
11 B. M. Magnússon, The Continental Shelf Beyond 200 Nautical Miles: Delineation, Delimitation and Dispute Settlement (2015), 247 referring to UNCLOS Art. 77(3) and Delimitation of the Maritime Boundary between Bangladesh and Myanmar in the Bay of Bengal (Bangladesh/Myanmar) (Judgment), [2012] ITLOS, 51 ILM 844, paras. 408–9. See also T. McDorman, ‘The Continental Shelf Regime in the Law of the Sea Convention: A Reflection of the First Thirty Years’, (2012) 27 IJMCL 747–8.
12 Ibid., referring to Fisheries Case (United Kingdom v. Norway), [1951] ICJ Rep. 116, 160 (dissenting opinion).
13 J. Noyes, supra note 6, at 94.
14 R. Churchill, ‘Coastal State Rights on the Outer Continental Shelf’, in J. Barrett and R. Barnes (eds.), Law of the Sea: UNCLOS as a Living Treaty (2016), 137, 140.
15 F. M. Armas-Pfirter, ‘Submissions on the Outer Limit of the Continental Shelf: Practice to Date and Some Issues of Debate’, in D. Vidas (ed.), Law, Technology and Science for Oceans in Globalisation (2010), 477, 498.
16 See A. Oude Elferink, ‘Article 76 of the LOSC on the Definition of the Continental Shelf: Questions concerning its Interpretation from a Legal Perspective’, (2006) 21 ICJMCL 269, 277–9; G. Eiríksson, ‘The Case of Disagreement Between a Coastal State and the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf’, in M. H. Nordquist, J. N. Moore and T. Heidar (eds.), Legal and Scientific Aspects of Continental Shelf Limits (2004), 258.
17 R. Churchill, supra note 14, at 140.
18 Award in the Arbitration Regarding the Delimitation of the Maritime Boundary between Guyana and Suriname (Guyana v. Suriname), (2007) XXX RIAA 1, paras. 445–6.
19 Ibid., paras. 474, 477, 486.
20 Ibid., paras. 479–81.
21 Ibid., para. 481.
22 See ibid., para. 470; Aegean Sea Continental Shelf (Greece v. Turkey) (Interim Protection Order), [1976] ICJ Rep. 3, paras. 30–31.
23 See Guyana v. Suriname, supra note 18, paras. 479–81.
24 D. Anderson, ‘Negotiating Maritime Boundary Agreements: A Personal View’, in R. Lagoni and D. Vignes (eds.), Maritime Delimitation (2006), 121, 122.
25 J. Noyes, supra note 6, at 94 referring to R. Churchill and A. Lowe, The Law of the Sea, 3rd edition (1999), 80–1.
26 See R. Churchill, supra note 14, 144, 146–7.
27 Bangladesh/Myanmar, supra note 11, para. 448.
28 R. Churchill, supra note 14, at 146–7.
29 See ILC, ‘Summary Record of the 335th meeting’ (27 April 1956) 9; Guyana v. Suriname, supra note 18, para. 396; Territorial and Maritime Dispute (Nicaragua v. Colombia) (Judgment), [2012] ICJ Rep. 624, para. 38.
30 UNCLOS Art. 15.
31 Argument presented by Nicaragua in Costa Rica v. Nicaragua, supra note 4, para. 92.
32 Convention on the Continental Shelf (adopted 29 April 1958, entered into force 10 June 1964) 499 UNTS 311.
33 ILC Yearbook 1953/II, 213 and commentary 216.
34 M. Lando, supra note 2, at 7, referring to Commentary to the Articles concerning the Law of the Sea, in ILC Yearbook 1956/II, 271.
35 M. Lando, ibid.
36 See K. Purcell, Geographical Change and the Law of the Sea (2019), 106; UNCLOS I Official Records, vol. VI, 95.
37 M. Lando, supra note 2, at 4.
38 Ibid., at 5–6.
39 G. Eiríksson, ‘Satya N. Nandan’s Role in Drafting the Informal Single Negotiating Text: Aspects of the Preparatory Work for unclos’, in M. W. Lodge and M. H. Nordquist (eds.), Peaceful order in the world’s oceans: essays in honor of Satya N. Nandan (2014), 46.
40 See UNCLOS III, Informal Single Negotiating Text, part II, UN Doc. A/CONF.62/WP.8/Part II, (1975) Arts. 61(3) and 70(3).
41 G. Eiríksson, supra note 39, at 49. See also Introductory Note to the RSNT. The text was later expanded in the Informal Composite Negotiating Text, Rev. 2, UN Doc. A/CONF/62/WP.10/Rev.2 (1980).
42 D. Anderson, supra note 24, at 122; D. Vidas, ‘Sea-Level Rise and International Law: At the Convergence of Two Epochs’, (2014) 4 Climate Law 70, 76; C. Schofield, ‘Parting the Waves: Claims to Maritime Jurisdiction and the Division of Ocean Space’, (2012) 1 Penn State Journal of Law and International Affairs 40, 48.
43 See DOALOS, ‘Table of claims to maritime jurisdiction’, UN, 2011, available at www.un.org/Depts/los/LEGISLATIONANDTREATIES/PDFFILES/table_summary_of_claims.pdf (accessed 3 November 2021), footnote 54; Art. 1(3) of Law 61 on the Establishment of an ecological protection zone beyond the outer limit of the territorial sea (8 February 2006).
44 See M. Byers, International Law and the Arctic (2013), 59; T. McDorman and C. Schofield, ‘The Arctic Ocean unscrambled: competing claims and boundary disputes’, in K. N. Scott and D. L. VanderZwaag (eds.), Research Handbook on Polar Law (2020), 124, 139; United States Department of State, ‘Exclusive Economic Zone and Maritime Boundaries’, public notice 2237, 23 August 1995, 60 Federal Register 43825-43829.
45 Á. Ásgeirsdóttir, ‘Settling of the maritime boundaries of the United States: Cost of settlement and the benefits of legal certainty’, (2016) 73 Marine Policy 187, 188.
46 M. Lando, supra note 2, at 4.
47 Ibid.
48 K. Purcell, supra note 36, at 123.
49 Ibid., at 121.
50 Ibid.
51 Ibid., at 122.
52 D. Anderson, supra note 24, at 133.
53 M. Lando, supra note 2, at 7.
54 See Territorial and Maritime Dispute between Nicaragua and Honduras in the Caribbean Sea (Nicaragua v. Honduras) (Judgment), [2007] ICJ Rep. 659, para. 321(4).
55 M. Lando, supra note 2, at 8.
56 Costa Rica v. Nicaragua, supra note 4, para. 104.
57 Ibid., paras. 83–4.
58 M. Lando, supra note 2, at 10.
59 Ibid.
60 See Costa Rica v. Nicaragua, supra note 4, para. 86.
61 M. Lando, supra note 2, at 12.
62 See further discussion on delimitation of entitlements extending from unstable coastlines in S. Árnadóttir, supra note 7, at 114–31.
63 Ibid., at 107–13.
64 M. Lando, supra note 2, at 19.
65 Ibid., at 20–1.
66 Ibid., at 20.
67 The following discussion is based on S. Árnadóttir, supra note 7, at 161–5.
68 D. Johnston and M. Valencia, Pacific Ocean Boundary Problems: Status and Solutions (1991), 36.
69 Ibid., at 24–7.
70 Report and Recommendations to the Governments of Iceland and Norway of the Conciliation Commission on the Continental Shelf Area between Iceland and Jan Mayen (June 1981), 20 ILM 826, 839, 842.
71 C. Schofield, ‘Blurring the Lines? Maritime Joint Development and the Cooperative Management of Ocean Resources’, (2009) 7(1) Issues in Legal Scholarship 1, at 4–5.
72 D. Anderson, supra note 24, at 138.
73 C. Schofield, supra note 71, at 25.
74 Agreement between Denmark (on behalf of Greenland), Iceland and Norway on the stock of capelin in the waters between Greenland, Iceland and Jan Mayen (adopted 12 June 1989, entered into force 1 July 1989) 1548 UNTS 165.
75 The most recent agreement was concluded in 2018, see Framework Arrangement Between Greenland/Denmark, Iceland and Norway on the Conservation and Management of Capelin (adopted and entered into force 21 June 2018), Norwegian Government paper Meld. St. 15 (2018–19), 43–4.
76 DOALOS, Handbook on the Delimitation of Maritime Boundaries (2000) 39, para. 180, 314–15.