Maritime Delimitation Agreement

The judge will now consider whether the result so far with respect to the planned demarcation line should not lead to significant disproportion because of the length of the coasts and the distribution of the resulting areas. In note 39 of the ICJFootnote, it is recommended to take the posture. The views contained in the judgment on the delimitation of the continental shelf between the United Kingdom and the French Republic are essential. Footnote 40 When considering the terms “proportionality” and “reasonable assessment of natural characteristics,” the Tribunal found: P Weil, Maritime Delimitation and Land Delimitation, International Law at a Time of Perplexity: Essays in Honour of Shabtai Rosenne (Dordrecht, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 1989), 1021-1026, 1024. As the Tribunal has repeatedly stated, the delineation of footnote 52 implies a range of overlapping claims. Requirement and delimitation are two distinct concepts, but they are linked. The parties also recognize the interaction between claim and delimitation. Bangladesh states: “The court must answer this question before it can delineate the shelf: is one of the contracting parties entitled to a continental shelf beyond 200 nautical miles?” Similarly, Myanmar stresses that “the determination of the two states` claims on a continental shelf beyond 200 nautical miles and their respective magnitude are a precondition for any delimitation.” After the establishment of the corresponding maritime zone, the judge will continue the maritime delimitation required by the parties to the trial. To this end, it relies on the applicable delimitation rules that arise from the case law in the absence of provisions within UNCLOS. Maritime delimitation is based on the idea that coastal projections from two neighbouring states, each measuring a certain distance from the coast, overlap or overlap. If there are no identical and simultaneous rights in a given territory, there is no need to delineate maritime transport.

The problem here is that the alleged claims are based on presumptions rather than evidence, which is why the Board must be solicited. Land and sea border case (Cameroon and Nigeria, intervening in Equatorial Guinea) [2002] ICJ Rep . On 29 March 1994, the Cameroonian government filed an application in the ICJ register in which it stated that “the delimitation [of the maritime border between the two states] remained partial and, despite numerous attempts to complete it, both parties had not been able to do so.” It therefore asked the court “to avoid further incidents between the two countries, […] To determine the route of the maritime boundary between the two states beyond the line drawn in 1975. In the case between Cameroon and Nigeria, the ICJ states in [288]: “The Court has repeatedly clarified which criteria, principles and rules of delimitation apply when it is necessary to determine a line covering several areas of fortuitous jurisdictions. They are expressed in the so-called just principles/relevant circumstances method. This method, which is very similar to the equarrization method/equulation method/special circumstances that applies to the delimitation of the coastal sea, is first drawn on a scaling line and then examines whether it is necessary to adapt or move that line in order to obtain a “reasonable result”. See also the case above, Nicaragua vs. Honduras, p. 19, 741 [271]. This means that, in the course of its judicial mission, the Tribunal can choose the conditions under which it will respond to the parties` statements.