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: 30 August 2022
A number of maritime delimitation disputes, the resolution of which has been referred to international courts or tribunals, include overlapping outer continental shelf claims without relevant recommendations from the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf (CLCS) in support of the claimed entitlements. The case law of courts and tribunals regarding the exercise of jurisdiction over such disputes has developed and appears now somewhat crystallized in a common understanding. Yet numerous uncertainties remain, which have arisen from the non-homogeneous approaches that underlie the decisions of courts and tribunals to exercise jurisdiction in the absence of recommendations from the CLCS. While courts and tribunals share the view that delimitation necessarily requires a prior determination of entitlement, differences appear in defining the threshold for ascertaining such a determination. In any event, treating submissions to delimit such claimed overlaps as admissible in the absence of recommendations from the CLCS may entail significant risks. Where a plea is considered admissible, a court or tribunal will not have unfettered discretion as to whether to exercise jurisdiction. This may result in unfortunate situations as it cannot be assumed that the CLCS will accept coastal states’ proposed outer limits of the continental shelf.
Certains différends relatifs à la délimitation maritime dont la résolution a été renvoyée aux cours et tribunaux internationaux comprennent des revendications de plateau continental étendu qui se chevauchent, mais sans recommandations de la Commission des limites du plateau continental (CLPC) à l’appui des droits revendiqués. La jurisprudence des cours et tribunaux concernant l’exercice de la compétence dans de tels litiges s’est développée et semble, dans une certaine mesure, avoir adopté une compréhension commune sur la question. Pourtant, de nombreuses incertitudes demeurent. Cela découle des approches non homogènes qui sous-tendent les décisions des cours et tribunaux d’exercer leur compétence en l’absence de recommandations de la CLPC. Alors que les cours et tribunaux conviennent que la délimitation nécessite une détermination préalable des droits des parties dans les zones maritimes en question, des différences surgissent quant à la définition du seuil permettant d’établir une telle détermination. En tout état de cause, traiter de recevable une demande de délimitation du plateau continental étendu en l’absence de recommandations de la CLPC peut comporter des risques importants. Lorsqu’un plaidoyer est jugé recevable, une cour ou un tribunal n’a pas un pouvoir discrétionnaire absolu quant à l’exercice de sa compétence. Cela peut créer des situations difficiles puisqu’il n’est pas certain que la CLPC acceptera les limites extérieures du plateau continental proposées par les États côtiers.
1 Proclamation No 2667, 10 Federal Register 12303, reprinted in Marjorie Whiteman, Digest of International Law, vol 4 (1965) at 756–76. On the Truman Proclamation, see Ann Hollick, “US Oceans Policy: The Truman Proclamations” (1976) 16 Va J Intl L 23.
2 United Nations Convention on the Continental Shelf, 29 April 1958, 499 UNTS 311 (entered into force 10 June 1964).
3 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, 10 December 1982, 1833 UNTS 3 (entered into force 16 November 1994) [UNCLOS].
4 North Sea Continental Shelf Cases (Federal Republic of Germany v Denmark; Federal Republic of Germany v Netherlands), [1969] ICJ Rep 3 at para 19.
5 For an illustrative list, see Francis Aimé Vallat, “The Continental Shelf” (1946) 23 Br YB Intl L 317; Claud Humphrey Meredith Waldock, “The Legal Basis of Claims to the Continental Shelf” in Transactions of the Grotius Society for the Year 1950 (London: Cambridge University Press, 1951) 115; Gilbert Gidel, “À propos des bases juridiques des prétentions des États riverains sur le plateau continental: les doctrines du ‘droit inhérent’” (1958) 1–3 Zeitschrift für Ausländisches und Ӧffentliches Recht 81; Dupuy, René-Jean, “The Sea under National Competence” in Dupuy, René-Jean & Vignes, Daniel, eds, A Handbook on the New Law of the Sea (Dordrecht: Martinus Nijhoff, 1991) 425 Google Scholar; DN Hutchinson, “The Seaward Limit to Continental Shelf Jurisdiction in International Law” (1985) 56 Br YB Intl L 105; Robert Y Jennings, “The Principles Governing Marine Boundaries” in K Hailbronner, G Ress & T Stein, eds, Staat und Vôlkerrechtsordnung, Festschrift für Karl Doehring (Berlin: Springer-Verlag, 1989) 398.
6 Maritime Delimitation in the Indian Ocean (Somalia v Kenya), Judgment of 12 October 2021, online: ICJ <www.icj-cij.org/public/files/case-related/161/161-20211012-JUD-01-00-EN.pdf> [Indian Ocean (Somalia v Kenya)].
7 UNCLOS, supra note 3, Annex II, art 9 provides: “The actions of the Commission shall not prejudice matters relating to delimitation of boundaries between States with opposite or adjacent coasts.”
8 Ibid, Annex II, art 4.
9 See Immunities and Criminal Proceedings (Equatorial Guinea v France), Preliminary Objections, [2018] ICJ Rep 292 at 321, para 92.
10 On this issue, see Oil Platforms (Islamic Republic of Iran v United States of America), Preliminary Objections, [1996] ICJ Rep 803 at 814, para 28.
11 UNCLOS, supra note 3, art 76 and Annex II do not rely on the notion “states parties” but exclusively on “coastal states,” which raises the question whether the obligation applies also to non-states parties, the response to which would depend on whether the provisions in question reflect customary international law. According to the International Court of Justice (ICJ), paragraph 1 of Article 76 reflects customary international law. Territorial and Maritime Dispute (Nicaragua v Colombia), [2012] ICJ Rep 624 at 666, para 118 [Maritime Dispute (Nicaragua v Colombia)]. On this issue, see Baumert, Kevin, “The Outer Limits of the Continental Shelf under Customary International Law” (2018) 114:4 Am J Intl L 827 Google Scholar. Yet Judge ad hoc Cot noted in his declaration in Maritime Dispute (Nicaragua v Colombia) that “[i]t is difficult to regard paragraph 8 as an expression of customary law. The provision institutes a specific procedure which is not accessible to non-member States.” Maritime Dispute (Nicaragua v Colombia), ibid at 771, para 19. Similar reasoning appeared also in the Declaration of Judge ad hoc Mensah when observing that “the obligations under Article 76, paragraphs 8 and 9, are ‘treaty obligations’ that apply only as between States that have expressed their consent to be bound by the UNCLOS treaty. Those provisions cannot be considered as imposing mandatory obligations on all States under customary international law. As such they only apply where all the States concerned are parties to UNCLOS” (ibid at 765, para 8).
12 Dispute Concerning Delimitation of the Maritime Boundary between Bangladesh and Myanmar in the Bay of Bengal (Bangladesh v Myanmar), [2012] ITLOS Rep 4 at 107, para 408 [Bay of Bengal (Bangladesh v Myanmar)]. On this case, see Robin Churchill, “The Bangladesh/Myanmar Case: Continuity and Novelty in the Law of Maritime Boundary Delimitation” (2012) 1 Cambridge J Intl & Comp L 137.
13 The relevant part of UNCLOS, supra note 3, art 76(8) provides: “The limits of the shelf established by a coastal State on the basis of these recommendations shall be final and binding.”
14 Bay of Bengal (Bangladesh v Myanmar), supra note 12 at 107, para 407.
15 Indian Ocean (Somalia v Kenya), supra note 6 at para 188 [emphasis added].
16 Bay of Bengal Maritime Boundary Arbitration between Bangladesh and India (Bangladesh v India) (2014), Annex VII Arbitral Tribunal, PCA Case No 2010-16 [Bay of Bengal (Bangladesh v India)].
17 Question of the Delimitation of the Continental Shelf between Nicaragua and Colombia beyond 200 Nautical Miles from the Nicaraguan Coast (Nicaragua v Colombia), [2016] ICJ Rep 100 [Nicaraguan Coast (Nicaragua v Colombia)].
18 Dispute Concerning Delimitation of the Maritime Boundary between Ghana and Côte d’Ivoire in the Atlantic Ocean (Ghana v Côte d’Ivoire), [2017] ITLOS Rep 4 (Special Chamber) [Atlantic Ocean (Ghana v Côte d’Ivoire)].
19 Indian Ocean (Somalia v Kenya), supra note 6.
20 President Donoghue has observed in this respect that “[u]nlike the existence of an entitlement to continental shelf based on the distance criterion, the existence of continental shelf beyond 200 nautical miles is a question of fact that turns on geology and geomorphology.” Maritime Dispute (Nicaragua v Colombia), supra note 11 at 752, para 4, Separate Opinion. See also the Scientific and Technical Guidelines of the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf (CLCS), according to which “[t]he [CLCS] recognizes that the foot of the continental slope is an essential feature that serves as the basis for entitlement to the extended continental shelf and the delineation of its outer limits. According to paragraph 4(a)(i) and (ii), it is the reference baseline from which the breadths of the limits specified by formulae rules are measured.” CLCS, Scientific and Technical Guidelines of the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf, Doc CLCS/11 (13 May 1999), point 5.1.1 [CLCS Guidelines].
21 A submission under Article 76(8) of UNCLOS, supra note 3, shall contain three parts: (1) an executive summary; (2) a main body; and (3) supporting scientific and technical data. See Rules of Procedure of the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf, Doc CLCS/40/Rev.1 (17 April 2008), Annex III, Rule I(1) [Rules of Procedure of the CLCS].
22 It is firmly established in the relevant case law that the drawing of a “relevant area,” where potential entitlements necessarily overlap, “has to be taken into account as part of the methodology of maritime delimitation.” Maritime Delimitation in the Black Sea (Romania v Ukraine), [2009] ICJ Rep 61 at 99, para 100 [Black Sea (Romania v Ukraine)].
23 Executive summaries are the only parts of a submission that are made public.
24 Indian Ocean (Somalia v Kenya), supra note 6 at 2, para 8, Separate Opinion of President Joan Donoghue.
25 Rules of Procedure of the CLCS, supra note 21, Rules 47(2), 50 [emphasis added].
26 The ICJ notes in this regard: “Depending on the extent of Kenya’s entitlement to a continental shelf beyond 200 nautical miles as it may be established in the future on the basis of the Commission’s recommendations.” Indian Ocean (Somalia v Kenya), supra note 6 at 69, para 197 [emphasis added].
27 For an illustrative list of academic writings, see Xuexia Liao, “The Road Not Taken: Submission of Disputes Concerning Activities in Undelimited Maritime Areas to UNCLOS Compulsory Procedures” (2021) 52:3 Ocean Development & Intl L 297; Xuexia Liao, The Continental Shelf Delimitation beyond 200 Nautical Miles: Towards a Common Approach to Maritime Boundary-Making (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2021) at 386; Helmut Turk, “Questions Relating to the Continental Shelf beyond 200 Nautical Miles: Delimitation, Delineation, and Revenue Sharing” (2021) 98 Intl L Studies 232; Jianjun Gao, “The Delimitation Method for the Continental Shelf beyond 200 Nautical Miles: A Reflection on the Judicial and Arbitral Decisions” (2020) 51:2 Ocean Dev & Intl L 116; Massimo Lando, “Delimiting the Continental Shelf beyond 200 Nautical Miles at the International Court of Justice: The Nicaragua v Colombia Cases” (2017) 16:2 Chinese J Intl L 137; Joanna Mossup, The Continental Shelf Beyond 200 Nautical Miles: Rights and Responsibilities (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2016) at 304; Bjørn Kunoy, “Le tracé d’une frontière dans la zone située au-delà de 200 miles marins en l’absence de recommandations de la Commission des limites du plateau continental” (2015) 61 AFDI 35.
28 Case Concerning Territorial and Maritime Dispute between Nicaragua and Honduras in the Caribbean Sea (Nicaragua v Honduras), [2007] ICJ Rep 659 at 759, para 319 [Caribbean Sea (Nicaragua v Honduras)] [emphasis added]. The obiter dictum was restated in Indian Ocean (Somalia v Kenya), supra note 6 at para 193. Yet it is noteworthy that, while the ICJ recalled in Maritime Dispute (Nicaragua v Colombia), supra note 11, that it had in 2007 “stated” the above-mentioned obiter dictum (at para 126), in the judgment on the merits in Indian Ocean (Somalia v Kenya), the ICJ expressed the view that the ICJ had in 2007 “expounded” the obiter dictum (at para 187).
29 Maritime Dispute (Nicaragua v Colombia), supra note 11 at 758, para 25, Separate Opinion of Judge Donoghue.
30 On this issue, see Robert Y Jennings, “The Judiciary, International and National, and the Development of International Law” (1996) 45:1 ICLQ 1; Hersch Lauterpacht, The Development of International Law by the International Court, 2nd ed (London: Stevens & Sons, 1958) at 61; Interpretation of Judgments Nos 7 and 8 (Factory at Charzów), (1927), PCIJ (Ser A) No 13 at 24, Dissenting Opinion of Dionisio Anzilotti.
31 See e.g. the Declaration of Judge ad hoc Mensah: “I do not consider that the reference to the Court’s statement in the case of Nicaragua v. Honduras, to the effect that ‘any claim to continental shelf rights beyond 200 miles must be in accordance with Article 76 of UNCLOS and reviewed by the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf established thereunder’, is either appropriate or necessary.” Maritime Dispute (Nicaragua v Colombia), supra note 11 at 762, para 2, Declaration of Judge ad hoc Mensah.
32 On the role of obiter dicta as precedents in international law, see Niccolò Ridi, “Mirages of an Intellectual Demand? Ratio, Obiter and the Textualization of International Precedent” (2019) 10 J Intl Dispute Settlement 361.
33 Continental Shelf (Libya v Malta), [1985] ICJ Rep 13 at 23, para 19 [Continental Shelf (Libya v Malta)].
34 Final Act of the Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea, Annex II: Statement of Understanding Concerning a Specific Method to be Used in Establishing the Outer Edge of the Continental Margin (27 October 1982), Doc A/CONF.62/121 [Final Act, Annex II].
35 Bay of Bengal (Bangladesh v Myanmar), supra note 12 at para 446.
36 Ibid at para 443.
37 Yuval Shany, Questions of Jurisdiction and Admissibility before International Courts (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2015) at 11.
38 On this issue, see Gorton, Edward, “Discretion to Decline to Exercise Jurisdiction” (1987) 81:1 Am J Intl L 129 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
39 In Bay of Bengal (Bangladesh v Myanmar), Myanmar did raise the argument that the submission to delimit possible outer continental shelf overlaps would be inadmissible until the CLCS had rendered its recommendations to both parties to the dispute. According to Myanmar, notwithstanding the jurisdiction of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS), it could “exercise this jurisdiction only after the [CLCS] had rendered recommendations to the States involved [as] it is only when such titles have been established and the claims of the States in question overlap that [ITLOS] can exercise the jurisdiction that it in principle possesses in such matters.” Bay of Bengal (Bangladesh v Myanmar), supra note 12, Doc PV.11 (E) at 12, lines 11–19. Yet ITLOS contented itself with confirming that it had jurisdiction to resolve the claimed overlapping entitlements to the outer continental shelf without addressing the admissibility matter.
40 Maritime Dispute (Nicaragua v Colombia), supra note 11.
41 At the eleventh Meeting of the States Parties to UNCLOS, supra note 3, it was agreed that the date of commencement of the ten-year time period for making submissions to the CLCS according to Article 4 of Annex II to UNCLOS, for states for which UNCLOS had entered into force prior to the date of adoption of the CLCS Guidelines, supra note 20, would be 13 May 1999. See Decision Regarding the Date of Commencement of the Ten-year Period for Making Submissions to the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf Set Out in Article 4 of Annex II to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, Decision SPLOS/72 (29 May 2001). At the eighteenth Meeting of the States Parties, Decision SPLOS/183 was adopted with regard to the ten-year time frame as amended seven years earlier by Doc SPLOS/72. Due account was given to the fact that developing countries continued to encounter problems due to a “lack of financial and technical resources and relevant capacity and expertise, or similar constraints,” in light of which it was decided that the ten-year time frame and Decision SPLOS/72 may be satisfied by submitting only preliminary information indicative of the outer limits of the continental shelf beyond two hundred nautical miles within the time frame agreed on in Decision SPLOS/72. Decision Regarding the Workload of the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf and the Ability of States, Particularly Developing States, to Fulfill the Requirements of Article 4 of Annex II to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, as well as the Decision Contained in SPLOS/72, Paragraph (a), Doc SPLOS/183 (20 June 2008).
42 Maritime Dispute (Nicaragua v Colombia), supra note 11 at 669, para 129.
43 Caribbean Sea (Nicaragua v Honduras), supra note 28.
44 Maritime Dispute (Nicaragua v Colombia), supra note 11 at 766, para 12, Declaration of Judge Mensah.
45 Ibid at 751, para 2, Separate Opinion of Judge Donoghue.
46 Nicaraguan Coast (Nicaragua v Colombia), supra note 17 at 132, para 84.
47 Ibid at 136, para 105.
48 Ibid at 137, para 114.
49 Ibid at 137, para 115.
50 On admissibility, see Gerald Fitzmaurice, “The Law and Procedure of the International Court of Justice, 1951–54: Questions of Jurisdiction, Competence and Procedure” (1958) 34 Br YB Intl L 8; Shabtai Rosenne, The Law and Practice of the International Court, 1920–2005, vol 2: Jurisdiction (Leiden: Brill, 2006) at 523.
51 Nicaraguan Coast (Nicaragua v Colombia), supra note 17 at 132, para 87.
52 Ibid at 137, para 114.
53 Bay of Bengal (Bangladesh v Myanmar), supra note 12 at para 384.
54 Bay of Bengal (Bangladesh v India), supra note 16 at 93, para 299. Judge Cot also observed in similar terms in his separate opinion to the judgment of ITLOS in the Bay of Bengal case that, consistent with the “view that there is a single continental shelf[, there is] no basis for distinguishing between projections within 200 [nautical miles] and those beyond that point.” Bay of Bengal (Bangladesh v Myanmar), supra note 12 at 190, Separate Opinion. For a contrary view, see the Declaration of Judge Xue, noting that “[w]ith the radial projection methodology, it is difficult to proceed to identifying the relevant coasts and the relevant area that includes the potential overlapping entitlements in the continental shelf beyond 200 nautical miles, as its outer limits are not yet determined.” Indian Ocean (Somalia v Kenya), supra note 6 at 6, para 11, Declaration of Judge Xue.
55 Bay of Bengal (Bangladesh v India), supra note 16 at 93, para 299.
56 The International Law Association Committee established to examine Article 76 of UNCLOS observed on this issue that “the foot of the continental slope provide[s] an alternative baseline to establish an equidistance line. The reason for suggesting this option is that under article 76 of [UNCLOS,] the outer limit of the outer continental shelf is not linked directly to the baseline of the territorial sea, as is the case for the territorial sea and 200 nautical mile zones, but depends on the location of the foot of the continental slope.” Preliminary Report of the International Law Association Committee (15 January 2002) at 9, online: <www.ila-hq.org>. It should however be noted that the baselines from which the breadth of the territorial sea is measured may play a role where (1) the outer edge of the continental margin extends beyond 350 nautical miles, and (2) the 2,500 metre isobath depth constraint under UNCLOS, supra note 3, art 76(6), is not applicable or is located at a point less than 250 nautical miles from the baselines.
57 Bay of Bengal (Bangladesh v India), supra note 16 at 141, para 457.
58 Ibid at 141, para 458.
59 Barbados v Trinidad and Tobago, (2006) 45 ILM 839 at para 213 (Permanent Court of Arbitration).
60 Prosper Weil, “Geographic Considerations in Maritime Delimitation” in JI Charney & L Alexander, eds, International Maritime Boundaries, vol 1 (Dordrecht: Martinus Nijhoff, 1993) 116.
61 Guyana v Suriname (2007), Arbitral Tribunal, PCA Case No 2004-04 at 113, para 352 [emphasis added].
62 Indian Ocean (Somalia v Kenya), supra note 6 at 2, para 12, Separate Opinion of President Donoghue.
63 Atlantic Ocean (Ghana v Côte d’Ivoire), supra note 18.
64 Ibid at 136, para 493.
65 Ibid at para 490.
66 Ibid at para 493. Likewise, in Nicaraguan Coast (Nicaragua v Colombia) and by way of implication in Maritime Dispute (Nicaragua v Colombia), the admissibility of a submission to delimit outer continental shelf overlaps in the absence of recommendations from the CLCS was also addressed by examining the different roles of the CLCS and of courts and tribunals established under Part XV of UNCLOS, supra note 3. Nicaraguan Coast (Nicaragua v Colombia), supra note 17 at 137, paras 111–15; Maritime Dispute (Nicaragua v Colombia), supra note 11.
67 See Oral Proceedings, Counsel of Kenya, Doc CR 2016/10 (19 September 2016) at 42–44, paras 21–23.
68 Indian Ocean (Somalia v Kenya), supra note 6 at 38, para 94.
69 This does not necessarily imply that a court or tribunal needs to decide on jurisdiction prior to addressing whether a plea is admissible. Yet, for a contrary view on this question, see Interhandel (Switzerland v United States of America), Preliminary Objections, [1959] ICJ Rep 6 at 97, Dissenting Opinion of Sir Hersch Lauterpacht. See also South West Africa (Ethiopia v South Africa), Preliminary Objections, [1962] ICJ Rep 319 at 574, para 2, Dissenting Opinion of Judge Gaetano Morelli.
70 Continental Shelf (Libya v Malta), supra note 33 at 23, para 19.
71 Case Concerning the Frontier Dispute (Burkina Faso v Republic of Mali), [1986] ICJ Rep 554 at 579, para 50.
72 Nuclear Tests (Australia v France), [1974] ICJ Rep 253 at 322, para 22, Joint Dissenting Opinion of Judges Onyeama, Dillard, Jiménez de Aréchaga, and Sir Humphrey Waldock [Nuclear Tests (Australia v France)].
73 Hugh Thirlway, “The International Court of Justice” in Malcolm Evans, ed, International Law, 2nd ed (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006) 572.
74 Nuclear Tests (Australia v France), supra note 72 at 322, para 22, Joint Dissenting Opinion of Judges Onyeama, Dillard, Jiménez de Aréchaga, and Sir Humphrey Waldock.
75 Case Concerning the Northern Cameroons (Cameroon v United Kingdom), Preliminary Objections, [1963] ICJ Rep 15 at 29 [Northern Cameroons (Cameroon v United Kingdom)].
76 Land and Maritime Boundary between Cameroon and Nigeria, Preliminary Objections, [1998] ICJ Rep 275 at 308–09. On this issue, see Gorton, supra note 38.
77 Free Zones of Upper Savoy and the District of Gex (1929), PCIJ (Ser A) No 42 at 15.
78 Free Zones of Upper Savoy and the District of Gex (1932), PCIJ (Ser A/B) No 46 at 161.
79 Ibid at 162.
80 Ibid.
81 Nicaraguan Coast (Nicaragua v Colombia), supra note 17, para 84.
82 Indian Ocean (Somalia v Kenya), supra note 6 at 38, para 94 [emphasis added].
83 Ibid.
84 Case Concerning Oil Platforms (Islamic of Republic of Iran v United States of America), [2003] ICJ Rep 161 at 176, para 29.
85 Northern Cameroons (Cameroon v United Kingdom), supra note 75 at 104, Separate Opinion of Judge Fitzmaurice.
86 Nicaraguan Coast (Nicaragua v Colombia), supra note 17 at 132, para 85.
87 Indian Ocean (Somalia v Kenya), supra note 6 at 38, para 94 [emphasis added].
88 Continental Shelf (Libya v Malta), supra note 33 at 23, para 19.
89 Indian Ocean (Somalia v Kenya), supra note 6 at 67, para 189 [emphasis added].
90 Black Sea (Romania v Ukraine), supra note 22 at 101, para 116.
91 Ibid.
92 Northern Cameroons (Cameroon v United Kingdom), supra note 75 at 104, Separate Opinion of Judge Fitzmaurice.
93 Indian Ocean (Somalia v Kenya), supra note 6 at 2, para 8, Separate Opinion of President Donoghue.
94 On this reasoning, see the judgment of ITLOS in Bay of Bengal, observing that the “determination of whether an international court or tribunal should exercise its jurisdiction depends on the procedural and substantive circumstances of each case.” Bay of Bengal (Bangladesh v Myanmar), supra note 12 at para 384 [emphasis added].
95 Continental Shelf (Tunisia v Libyan Arab Jamahiriya), [1982] ICJ Rep 18 at 82, para 114 [Continental Shelf (Tunisia v Libya)].
96 On this issue, see Churchill, Robin, “The Bangladesh/Myanmar Case: Continuity and Novelty in the Law of Maritime Boundary Delimitation” (2012) 1 Cambridge J Intl & Comp L 137 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Kunoy, Bjørn, “The Delimitation of an Indicative Area of Overlapping Entitlement to the Outer Continental Shelf” (2012) 83 Br YB Intl L 61 Google Scholar.
97 Atlantic Ocean (Ghana v Côte d’Ivoire), supra note 18 at 136, para 491.
98 Black Sea (Romania v Ukraine), supra note 22 at 99, para 110.
99 In Bay of Bengal (Bangladesh v India), the arbitral tribunal observed, after noting that there is only a single continental shelf in international law, that it “considers that the appropriate method for delimiting the continental shelf remains the same, irrespective of whether the area to be delimited lies within or beyond 200 [nautical miles]. Having adopted the equidistance/relevant circumstances method for the delimitation of the continental shelf within 200 [nautical miles], the Tribunal will use the same method to delimit the continental shelf beyond 200 [nautical miles].” Bay of Bengal (Bangladesh v India), supra note 16 at 142, para 465.
100 Indian Ocean (Somalia v Kenya), supra note 6 at 6, para 11, Declaration of Judge Xue.
101 St Pierre & Miquelon (Canada v France), (1992) 31 ILM 1145 at 1172, para 81.
102 Indian Ocean (Somalia v Kenya), supra note 6 at 2, para 8, Separate Opinion of President Donoghue.
103 Bay of Bengal (Bangladesh v Myanmar), supra note 12 at 115, para 445.
104 Ibid at 116, para 449.
105 Ibid at 115, para 443 [emphasis added].
106 On this issue, see Gorton, supra note 38.
107 Final Act, Annex II, supra note 34. Yet, for a different view — that is, that the constraints in UNCLOS Article 76(5)–(6) do not apply when reliance is made on the Statement of Understanding — see Pinto, MCW, “Article 76 of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea and the Bay of Bengal Exception” (2013) 3:2 Asian J Intl L 215 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
108 The implications arising from the exercise of jurisdiction in that particular dispute remain to be seen. For, while ITLOS determined that the delimitation line shall continue along the geodetic line established in the area within the two hundred nautical mile distance line “until it reaches the area where the rights of third States may be affected” (Bay of Bengal (Bangladesh v Myanmar), supra note 12 at para 506(6)), the outer continental shelf claim of Sri Lanka in fact intersects with the two hundred nautical mile distance line of Myanmar and Bangladesh respectively. See Executive Summary of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka (8 May 2009) at 12, Figure 3. This raises the question at the outset whether the delimitation may be considered to extend beyond the two hundred nautical mile distance line. On the role of third parties to a judicial delimitation, see Jouannet, Emmanuelle, “L’impossible protection des droits du tiers par la Cour internationale de Justice dans les affaires de délimitation maritime” in Coussirat-Coustère, Vincent et al, eds, La mer et son droit: Mélanges offerts à Laurent Luccini et Jean Pierre Quéneudec (Paris: Pedone, 2003) 312.Google Scholar
109 Indian Ocean (Somalia v Kenya), supra note 6 at 68, para 193.
110 Bay of Bengal (Bangladesh v Myanmar), supra note 12, para 413.
111 Continental Shelf (Tunisia v Libya), supra note 95 at 82, para 114.
112 Ibid [emphasis added].
113 Maritime Dispute (Nicaragua v Colombia), supra note 11 at 674, para 140.
114 Indian Ocean (Somalia v Kenya), supra note 6 at 67–68, paras 192–93.
115 Ibid at 68, para 194.
116 According to the CLCS Guidelines, the executive summary need only contain the following information: (1) Charts at an appropriate scale and coordinates indicating the outer limtis of the continental shelf and the relervant territprial sea baselines; (2) the provisions of UNCLOS, supra note 3, art 76, which are invoked in support of the proposed outer limits; (3) the name of any CLCS member who may have given advice in the preparation of the submission; and (4) any disputes with neighbouring coastal states. See CLCS Guidelines, supra note 20, point 9.1.4.
117 Indian Ocean (Somalia v Kenya), supra note 6 at 1, para 1, Separate Opinion of President Donoghue.
118 Maritime Delimitation in the Indian Ocean (Somalia v Kenya), Judgment of 12 October 2021, at 3, para 13, Individual Opinion, Partly Concurring and Partly Dissenting, of Judge Robinson, online: ICJ <www.icj-cij.org/public/files/case-related/161/161-20211012-JUD-01-05-EN.pdf>.
119 Ibid at para 16.
120 Indian Ocean (Somalia v Kenya), supra note 6 at 68, para 194.
121 A “grey area” is an area on one side of a continental shelf boundary beyond two hundred nautical miles from the state on that side of the boundary, but within two hundred nautical miles of the state on the other side of the boundary. See Øystein Jensen, “The Delimitation of the Continental Shelf beyond 200 Nautical Miles” in Alex G Oude Elferink, Tore Henriksen & Signe V Busch, eds, Maritime Boundary Delimitation: The Case Law (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2018) 351; Raghavendra Mishra, “The ‘Grey Area’ in the Northern Bay of Bengal: A Note on a Functional Cooperative Solution” (2016) 47 Ocean Dev & Intl L 29. On grey areas, see Alex Oude Elferink, “Does Undisputed Title to a Maritime Zone Always Exclude Its Delimitation: The Grey Area Issue” (1998) 13:2 Intl J Marine & Coastal L 143; Xu, Qi, “Reflections on the Presence of Third States in International Maritime Boundary Delimitation” (2019) 18:1 Chinese J Intl L 91 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
122 Indian Ocean (Somalia v Kenya), supra note 6 at 68, para 193.
123 Ibid at 69, para 197 [emphasis added].
124 Ibid.
125 Ibid at 68, para 193.
126 The CLCS made its recommendations to Côte d’Ivoire on 5 February 2020. CLCS, Summary of Recommendations of the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf in Regard to the Amended Submission Made by the Republic of Côte d’Ivoire on 24 March 2016 (5 February 2020), online: <www.un.org/Depts/los/clcs_new/submissions_files/cvi42_09/2020_02_05_COM_SUMREC_CIV_web.pdf> [CLCS Recommendations to Côte d’Ivoire].
127 Atlantic Ocean (Ghana v Côte d’Ivoire), supra note 18 at 136, para 491.
128 Ibid.
129 Ibid at 137, para 497 [emphasis added].
130 Élie Jarmache, “À propos de la Commission des limites du plateau continental” (2006) 11 Ann dr mer 61 at 67.
131 Atlantic Ocean (Ghana v Côte d’Ivoire), supra note 18 at 136, para 491.
132 Bay of Bengal (Bangladesh v Myanmar), supra note 12 at para 438.
133 The practice of the CLCS abundantly supports the conclusion that the determining factor for verifying whether the submitting coastal state has an entitlement to outer continental shelf areas is morphology. See illustratively CLCS, Summary of Recommendations of the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf in Regard to the Submission Made by Barbados on 8 May 2008 (15 April 2010) at paras 11–12, online: <www.un.org/depts/los/clcs_new/submissions_files/brb08/brb08_summary_recommendations.pdf>.
134 Continental Shelf (Tunisia v Libya), supra note 95 at 54, para 61.
135 See CLCS Recommendations to Côte d’Ivoire, supra note 126.
136 Indian Ocean (Somalia v Kenya), supra note 6 at 68, para 193.
137 Yet, for a contrary view, see Laurent Lucchini, “La délimitation des frontières maritimes dans la jurisprudence internationale: vue d’ensemble” in Rainer Lagoni & Daniel Vignes, eds, Maritime Delimitation (Leiden: Koninklijke Brill, 2006) 15. See also Élie Jarmache’s argument that one has to “admettre que les recommandations sont bien définitives et obligatoires, et qu’elles indiquent que les experts gouvernent; enfin ou hélas.” Jarmache, supra note 130 at 68.
138 See, for example, Indian Ocean (Somalia v Kenya), where the ICJ observed that “[i]t is only after such recommendations are made that Somalia and Kenya can establish final and binding outer limits of their continental shelves.” Indian Ocean (Somalia v Kenya), supra note 6 at para 188 [emphasis added].
139 In Bay of Bengal (Bangladesh v Myanmar), ITLOS observed in this respect that “[i]t is only after the limits are established by the coastal State on the basis of the recommendations of the [CLCS] that these limits become ‘final and binding’.” Bay of Bengal (Bangladesh v Myanmar), supra note 12 at para 407.
140 In Bay of Bengal (Bangladesh v Myanmar), ITLOS emphasized that the obligation to transmit submissions to the CLCS and the rule that only outer limits based on the recommendations of the CLCS can become “final and binding” do not “imply that entitlement to the continental shelf depends on any procedural requirements.” Ibid at para 408.
141 Bernard Oxman notes in a paper published more than forty years ago that, with the adoption of Article 76(8), submitting coastal states are faced with “an extraordinary power nowhere reproduced with respect to any other maritime limit. … They may not be contested.” Oxman, Bernard H, “The Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea: The Ninth Session (1980)” (1981) 75:2 Am J Intl L 219 at 230 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
142 Partial Submission of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland Relating to the Continental Shelf of Ascension Island (9 May 2008), online: <www.un.org/depts/los/clcs_new/submissions_files/submission_gbr.htm>.
143 See e.g. the recommendations of the CLCS of 19 April 2012 with respect to the submission of Japan of 12 November 2008, in which the CLCS did not endorse approximately 40 % of the outer continental shelf areas claimed by Japan. CLCS, Summary of Recommendations of the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf in Regard to the Submission Made by Japan on 12 November 2008 (19 April 2012), online: <www.un.org/depts/los/clcs_new/submissions_files/jpn08/com_sumrec_jpn_fin.pdf>.
144 CLCS, Summary of Recommendations of the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf in Regard to the Partial Submission Made by the Republic of South Africa in Respect of the Area of the South African Mainland on 5 May 2009 (17 March 2017), online: <www.un.org/depts/los/clcs_new/submissions_files/zaf31_09/2017_03_17_com_sumrec_zaf.pdf>.
145 Ibid at 7, figure 2.
146 See CLCS Recommendations to Côte d’Ivoire, supra note 126 at 11, Figure 6.
147 Ibid at 12, para 51.
148 Ibid at 12, para 53.
149 The Statement of the Chair of the CLCS observed that the judgment in the dispute between Ghana and Ivory Coast required a “test of appurtenance from a foot of the continental slope point that was part of the natural prolongation from the land territory of Côte d’Ivoire in accordance with section III of annex III to the rules of procedure.” Statement of the Chair on the Progress of Work in the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf During the Forty-Sixth Session, Doc CLCS/103 (6 April 2018) at 8, para 48.
150 CLCS Recommendations to Côte d’Ivoire, supra note 126 at 16, para 66.
151 Atlantic Ocean (Ghana v Côte d’Ivoire), supra note 18 at 137, para 491.
152 Indian Ocean (Somalia v Kenya), supra note 6 at 2, para 8, Separate Opinion of President Donoghue.