Helga Law Journal - 01.01.2021, Side 68

Helga Law Journal - 01.01.2021, Side 68
Helga Law Journal Vol. 1, 2021 70 Dr. Snjólaug Árnadóttir 71 arrangements subject to pacta sunt servanda109 or res judicata.110 The binding nature is rooted in consent. Bilateral boundaries cannot be challenged in the same manner as unilateral limits when circumstances change; they are generally stable and immune to coastal changes, unless otherwise agreed. Still, unilateral limits can fluctuate within these permanent boundaries unless specifically agreed upon, tacitly accepted, or permanently described in accordance with UNCLOS article 76. Overlapping territorial sea entitlements are delimited through the equidistance method, establishing boundaries that are equally distant from baselines along adjacent or opposite coasts, unless a different arrangement is justified by agreement, historic title or special circumstances.111 Boundaries to the exclusive economic zone and continental shelf are delimited on the basis of international law to achieve equitable solutions.112 Different methods are available for delimitation of such boundaries but coastal geography is always of pivotal importance. International courts and tribunals have confirmed this on several occasions.113 The size of coastal features and their distance from the mainland can be decisive in the delimitation process114 but these factors can undergo significant changes as sea levels rise and coastlines recede. States may agree to revise maritime boundaries, whether established by agreements or judicial decisions. The consent to revise settled boundaries can flow from the terms of the original agreement or a subsequent agreement. Mutual revision of maritime boundaries naturally requires the consent of all relevant parties and a State suffering from loss of territory will not be easily persuaded to construct a new maritime boundary when there is no legal obligation to do so. However, fundamental changes to coastal geography may justify revision or termination of bilateral maritime boundaries, despite the objection of one or more parties to the dispute. The principle of pacta sunt servanda does not provide that all agreements remain inviolable until the end of time.115 On the contrary, States can be released from treaty obligations through peaceful means under the doctrine of rebus sic stantibus, when circumstances leading to the conclusion of a treaty have changed and 109 Frontier Dispute (Burkina Faso v Republic of Mali) (Judgment) [1986] ICJ Rep 554, 577, para 46. 110 Territorial and Maritime Dispute (Nicaragua v Colombia) (Application by Honduras for Permission to Intervene) [2011] ICJ Rep 348, 368, para 67. 111 UNCLOS article 15. 112 UNCLOS articles 74 and 83. 113 See e.g. United Kingdom/France (n 6), para 84; North Sea Continental Shelf (n 6), para 96; Cameroon v Nigeria: Equatorial Guinea intervening (n 6), para 295; Delimitation of the Exclusive Economic Zone and the Continental Shelf (Barbados v Trinidad and Tobago) (Arbitral Award) [2006] RIAA volume XXVII, 147, para 288 and Continental Shelf (Tunisia/Libyan Arab Jamahiriya) (Judgment) [1982] ICJ Rep 18, para 126. 114 See e.g. Nicaragua v Colombia (n 56) para 202. 115 Rein Müllerson, ‘The ABM Treaty: Changed Circumstances, Extraordinary Events, Supreme Interests and International Law’ (2001) 50 International and Comparative Law Quarterly 509, 525. UNSG, or earlier, to avoid acquiescence. In the Black Sea case, the Court deemed a basepoint on the seaward end of Sulina dyke to be irrelevant for the delimitation of a bilateral boundary.103 Yet, the decision had no effect on the validity of Romania’s baselines, which gave that same base point full effect. This was partly due to the fact that Romania had submitted its data, designating a base point on Sulina dyke, to the UNSG, in accordance with UNCLOS article 16(2), and Ukraine had raised no objections.104 States may be able to prevent acquiescence to excessive maritime limits by challenging them soon after they are given due publicity in accordance with UNCLOS articles 16(2) and 76(9). However, the grounds for a challenge may arise years later, when coastal geography undergoes significant changes, for example with the submergence of an island. States have no reason to object to lawful maritime limits, but they must be allowed to challenge duly established limits when they become inconsistent with UNCLOS. After all, ‘[r]ights which have been acquired in clear conformity with existing law have no need of the doctrine of acquiescence to confirm their validity’.105 It should be noted that it may be difficult to define the point in time when maritime limits become inconsistent with international law. The status of coastal features is surveyed and depicted on navigational charts and the disappearance of a coastal features from such charts could give rise to challenges. However, the loss of capacity to sustain human habitation and economic life will not be as readily apparent. 4 Agreed or Judicially Settled Maritime Boundaries In cases where claims of two States to maritime zones overlap, the States are obligated to establish bilateral boundaries.106 This obligation cannot be satisfied through unilateral action. The States concerned must negotiate the establishment of bilateral boundaries in good faith ‘with the genuine intention of achieving a positive result’.107 If States cannot reach an agreement for the establishment of bilateral boundaries, they can resort to the dispute settlement mechanisms provided for in UNCLOS Part XV, including judicial settlement.108 Consequently, the requirement to establish an agreed boundary can be satisfied by submitting a boundary dispute to a court or a tribunal. While unilateral limits are only opposable to other States as long as they satisfy the requirements of UNCLOS or acquiescence, bilateral boundaries create binding 103 Maritime Delimitation in the Black Sea (Romania v Ukraine) (Judgment) [2009] ICJ Rep 61, para 217. 104 Ibid 107. 105 Ian C MacGibbon, ‘The scope of acquiescence in international law’ (1954) 31 British Yearbook of International Law, 143, 143. 106 UNCLOS articles 15, 74 and 83. 107 Delimitation of the Maritime Boundary in the Gulf of Maine Area (n 85) para 112(1). 108 United Nations, Handbook on the Delimitation of Maritime Boundaries (UN 2001) 1.
Side 1
Side 2
Side 3
Side 4
Side 5
Side 6
Side 7
Side 8
Side 9
Side 10
Side 11
Side 12
Side 13
Side 14
Side 15
Side 16
Side 17
Side 18
Side 19
Side 20
Side 21
Side 22
Side 23
Side 24
Side 25
Side 26
Side 27
Side 28
Side 29
Side 30
Side 31
Side 32
Side 33
Side 34
Side 35
Side 36
Side 37
Side 38
Side 39
Side 40
Side 41
Side 42
Side 43
Side 44
Side 45
Side 46
Side 47
Side 48
Side 49
Side 50
Side 51
Side 52
Side 53
Side 54
Side 55
Side 56
Side 57
Side 58
Side 59
Side 60
Side 61
Side 62
Side 63
Side 64
Side 65
Side 66
Side 67
Side 68
Side 69
Side 70
Side 71
Side 72
Side 73
Side 74
Side 75
Side 76
Side 77
Side 78
Side 79
Side 80
Side 81
Side 82
Side 83
Side 84
Side 85
Side 86
Side 87
Side 88
Side 89
Side 90
Side 91
Side 92
Side 93
Side 94
Side 95
Side 96
Side 97
Side 98
Side 99
Side 100
Side 101
Side 102
Side 103
Side 104
Side 105
Side 106
Side 107
Side 108
Side 109
Side 110
Side 111
Side 112
Side 113
Side 114
Side 115
Side 116
Side 117
Side 118
Side 119
Side 120
Side 121
Side 122
Side 123
Side 124
Side 125
Side 126
Side 127
Side 128
Side 129
Side 130
Side 131
Side 132
Side 133
Side 134
Side 135
Side 136
Side 137
Side 138
Side 139
Side 140
Side 141
Side 142
Side 143
Side 144
Side 145
Side 146
Side 147
Side 148
Side 149
Side 150
Side 151
Side 152
Side 153
Side 154
Side 155
Side 156
Side 157
Side 158
Side 159
Side 160
Side 161
Side 162
Side 163
Side 164
Side 165
Side 166
Side 167
Side 168
Side 169
Side 170
Side 171
Side 172
Side 173
Side 174
Side 175
Side 176
Side 177
Side 178
Side 179
Side 180
Side 181
Side 182
Side 183
Side 184
Side 185
Side 186
Side 187
Side 188
Side 189
Side 190
Side 191
Side 192
Side 193
Side 194
Side 195
Side 196
Side 197
Side 198
Side 199
Side 200
Side 201
Side 202
Side 203
Side 204
Side 205
Side 206
Side 207
Side 208
Side 209
Side 210
Side 211
Side 212
Side 213
Side 214
Side 215
Side 216
Side 217
Side 218
Side 219
Side 220
Side 221
Side 222
Side 223
Side 224

x

Helga Law Journal

Direkte link

Hvis du vil linke til denne avis/magasin, skal du bruge disse links:

Link til denne avis/magasin: Helga Law Journal
https://timarit.is/publication/1677

Link til dette eksemplar:

Link til denne side:

Link til denne artikel:

Venligst ikke link direkte til billeder eller PDfs på Timarit.is, da sådanne webadresser kan ændres uden advarsel. Brug venligst de angivne webadresser for at linke til sitet.