Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-xbtfd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T20:17:38.223Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

UNCLOS TRIBUNALS AND THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF REGIME

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 December 2017

Lan Ngoc Nguyen
Lan Ngoc Nguyen*
Affiliation:
PhD Candidate, University of Cambridge and Junior Lecturer, Utrecht University, l.n.nguyen@uu.nl.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Article 76 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) sets out the legal regime governing the novel ‘continental shelf beyond 200 nautical miles’ or ‘the outer continental shelf’. As Article 76 contains a complex interface between law and science, its interpretation and application raises intricate issues, with which no international court or tribunal had dealt with substantively before 2012. The UNCLOS dispute settlement bodies were the first international tribunals to provide answers to long-standing questions surrounding the meaning and application of several important, but ambiguous or controversial, legal terms employed under Article 76. As such, the decisions rendered by the UNCLOS tribunals have been seen as playing an important role in elucidating the legal regime of the outer continental shelf. This article queries this assessment by critically examining whether and to what extent the relevant pronouncements made by UNCLOS tribunals have contributed to clarifying and developing the law governing the outer continental shelf regime under UNCLOS.

Keywords

Public international lawAnnex VII arbitral tribunalArticle 76 UNCLOSCommission on the Limits of the Continental Shelfcontinental shelf beyond 200 nautical milesInternational Tribunal for the Law of the SeaUNCLOS
Type
Articles
Information
International & Comparative Law Quarterly , Volume 67 , Issue 2 , April 2018 , pp. 425 - 454
Copyright
Copyright © British Institute of International and Comparative Law 2017 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (10 December1982) 1833 UNTS 396.

2 Proclamation No. 2667 of September 28, 1945 ‘Policy of the United States with Respect to the Natural Resources of the Subsoil of the Sea Bed and the Continental Shelf <http://www.gc.noaa.gov/documents/gcil_proc_2667.pdf>.

3 Art 1 of the 1958 Convention on the Continental Shelf defines the continental shelf as ‘the seabed and subsoil of the submarine areas adjacent to the coast but outside the area of the territorial sea’. See 1958 Convention on the Continental Shelf (29 April 1958) 499 UNTS 311.

4 Johnston, DM, The Theory and History of Ocean Boundary-Making (McGill-Queen's University Press 1988) 91 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

5 Territorial and Maritime Dispute between Nicaragua and Honduras in the Caribbean Sea (Nicaragua v Honduras) [2007] ICJ Rep 659, Territorial and Maritime Dispute (Nicaragua v Colombia) (Judgment) [2012] ICJ Rep 624; Question of the Delimitation of the Continental Shelf between Nicaragua and Colombia beyond 200 Nautical Miles from the Nicaraguan Coast (Nicaragua v Colombia) (Preliminary Objections) 17 March 2016 <http://www.icj-cij.org/files/case-related/154/154-20160317-JUD-01-00-EN.pdf>, Maritime Delimitation in the Indian Ocean (Somalia v Kenya) (Preliminary Objections) 2 February 2017 <http://www.icj-cij.org/files/case-related/161/161-20170202-JUD-01-00-EN.pdf>. In Nicaragua v Colombia (2016), the Court found that it had jurisdiction to declare the course of the maritime boundary in the area beyond 200 nm. Similarly, in Somalia v Kenya, the ICJ confirmed that it had jurisdiction draw a single maritime boundary dividing all the maritime areas appertaining to Somalia and to Kenya in the Indian Ocean, including in the continental shelf beyond 200nm. However, the judgments on the merits have yet to be delivered. The judgments on the merits of these two cases have not, however, been issued.

6 Delimitation of Maritime Areas between Canada and France (10 June 1992) RIAA Volume XXI 265–341.

7 The Annex VII arbitral tribunal confirmed jurisdiction to delimit the outer continental shelf in Barbados v Trinidad and Tobago in 2007, but it did not proceed to delimit the outer continental shelf after finding that ‘the single maritime boundary which the Tribunal has determined is such that, as between Barbados and Trinidad, there is no single maritime boundary beyond 200 nm’. See Arbitration between Barbados and the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago, Relating to the Delimitation of the Exclusive Economic Zone and the Continental Shelf between Them (11 April 2006) XXVII RIAA 147–251 [368].

8 Delimitation of the Maritime Boundary in the Bay of Bengal (Bangladesh/Myanmar) (Judgment) [2002] ITLOS Rep 4.

9 Bay of Bengal Maritime Boundary Arbitration (Bangladesh/India) (7 July 2014) <http://www.pcacases.com/web/sendAttach/383>.

10 Dispute Concerning Delimitation of the Maritime Boundary between Ghana and Côte d'Ivoire in the Atlantic Ocean (Ghana/Côte d'Ivoire) (Judgment) 23 September 2017 <https://www.itlos.org/fileadmin/itlos/documents/cases/case_no.23_merits/C23_Judgment_23.09.2017_corr.pdf>.

11 See, eg, Kwiatkowska, B, ‘The 2006 Barbados/Trinidad and Tobago Award: A Landmark in Compulsory Jurisdiction and Equitable Maritime Boundary Delimitation’ (2007) 22(1) International Journal of Coastal and Marine Law 7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Churchill, R, ‘The Bangladesh/Myanmar Case: Continuity and Novelty in the Law of Maritime Boundary Delimitation’ (2012) 1(1) CJICL 137 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Kunoy, B, ‘The Delimitation of an Indicative Area of Overlapping Entitlement to the Outer Continental Shelf’ (2013) 83(1) BYBIL 61 Google Scholar; McDorman, T, ‘The Continental Shelf Beyond 200 NM: A First Look at the Bay of Bengal (Bangladesh/Myanmar) Case’ in Nordquist, MH, Moore, JN, Chircop, A and Long, R (eds), The Regulation of Continental Shelf Development: Rethinking International Standards (Brill 2013) 89 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Lin, S and Schofield, C, ‘Lessons from the Bay of Bengal ITLOS case: Stepping Offshore for a “Deeper” Maritime Political Geography’ (2014) 180(3) The Geographical Journal 260 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Kaldunski, M, ‘A Commentary on Maritime Boundary Arbitration between Bangladesh and India Concerning the Bay of Bengal’ (2015) 28(4) LJIL 799 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Elferink, AG Oude, ‘ITLOS's Approach to the Delimitation of the Continental Shelf beyond 200 Nautical Miles in the Bangladesh/Myanmar Case: Theoretical and Practical Difficulties’ in Wolfrum, R, Seršić, M and Šošić, TM (eds), Contemporary Developments in International Law: Essays in Honour of Budislav Vukas (Brill 2016)Google Scholar; Liao, X, Evaluation of Scientific Evidence by International Courts and Tribunals in the Continental Shelf Delimitation Cases (2017) 48(2) Ocean Development and International Law 136 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

12 Schofield, C, Telesetsky, A and Lee, S, ‘A Tribunal Navigating Complex Waters: Implications of the Bay of Bengal Case’ (2013) 444 Ocean Development and International Law 363 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Yao, H and Xuexia, L, ‘Natural Prolongation and Delimitation of the Continental Shelf Beyond 200 nm: Implications of the Bangladesh/Myanmar Case’ (2014) 4(2) AsianJIL 281 Google Scholar; Magnusson, BM, The Continental Shelf Beyond 200 nm: Delineation, Delimitation and Dispute Settlement (Brill 2016)Google Scholar.

13 North Sea Continental Shelf Cases (Federal Republic of Germany/Denmark; Federal Republic of Germany/Netherlands) (Judgment) [1969] ICJ Rep 3 [19].

14 Barbados v Trinidad and Tobago (n 7) [213]. See also: Bangladesh/Myanmar (n 8) [362]; Bangladesh/India (n 9) [77]; Ghana/Côte d'Ivoire (n 10) [490].

15 Bangladesh/Myanmar (n 8) [439].

16 North Sea Continental Shelf Cases (n 13) [19]. See also Proelss, A (ed), United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea: A Commentary (CH Beck, Hart, Nomos, 2017) 590 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

17 Bangladesh/Myanmar (n 8) [426].

18 ibid [427].

19 ibid [429].

20 ibid [430].

21 See also: Proelss (n 16) 592.

22 Bangladesh/Myanmar (n 8) [432].

23 ibid [433].

24 ibid [436].

25 ibid [434].

26 ibid [437].

27 ibid [435].

28 Suarez, SV, The Outer Limits of the Continental Shelf: Legal Aspects of Their Establishment (Springer 2008) 151 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

29 H Yao and L Xuexia (n 12); Jia, BB, ‘The Notion of Natural Prolongation in the Current Regime of the Continental Shelf: An Afterlife?’ (2013) 12 ChineseJIL 87 Google Scholar.

30 Bangladesh/Myanmar, Separate Opinion of Judge Gao [91] <https://www.itlos.org/fileadmin/itlos/documents/cases/case_no_16/published/C16_ZG.pdf>.

31 Kim, HJ, ‘Natural Prolongation: A Living Myth in the Regime of the Continental Shelf?’ (2014) 45 Ocean Development and International Law 374 CrossRefGoogle Scholar, 379.

32 Official Records of the Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea, Volume II (Summary Records of Meetings of the First, Second and Third Committees, Second Session), 16th Meeting A/CONF.62/C.2/SR.16, Statement of Bangladesh, para 13; Official Records of the Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea, Volume II (Summary Records of Meetings of the First, Second and Third Committees, Second Session), 17th Meeting A/CONF.62/C.2/SR.17, Statement of Australia, paras 7–10, Statement of Republic of Korea, para 24; Official Records of the Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea, Volume II (Summary Records of Meetings of the First, Second and Third Committees, Second Session), 18th Meeting A/CONF.62/C.2/SR.18, Statement of Venezuela, para 42, Statement of Uruguay, para 58; Statement of Trinidad and Tobago, para 88; Statement of Burma, paras 90–92; Official Records of the Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea, Volume II (Summary Records of Meetings of the First, Second and Third Committees, Second Session), 19th Meeting A/CONF.62/C.2/SR.19, Statement of Thailand, para 55.

33 Official Records of the Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea, Volume II (Summary Records of Meetings of the First, Second and Third Committees, Second Session), 16th Meeting A/CONF.62/C.2/SR.16. Statement of Honduras, para 25; Official Records of the Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea, Volume II (Summary Records of Meetings of the First, Second and Third Committees, Second Session), 18th Meeting A/CONF.62/C.2/SR.18, Statement of El Salvador, para 10; Statement of Argentina, para 22; Official Records of the Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea, Volume II (Summary Records of Meetings of the First, Second and Third Committees, Second Session), 19th Meeting A/CONF.62/C.2/SR.19, Statement of Ecuador, para 30; Statement of Iceland, para 51.

34 Official Records of the Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea, Volume II (Summary Records of Meetings of the First, Second and Third Committees, Second Session), 18th Meeting A/CONF.62/C.2/SR.18, Statement of Singapore, para 29; Statement of Nepal, para 35.

35 Official Records of the Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea, Volume II (Summary Records of Meetings of the First, Second and Third Committees, Second Session), 18th Meeting A/CONF.62/C.2/SR.18, Statement of Uruguay, paras 61–62, Statement of Trinidad and Tobago, para 86; Statement of Burma, para 91; Official Records of the Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea, Volume II (Summary Records of Meetings of the First, Second and Third Committees, Second Session), 19th Meeting A/CONF.62/C.2/SR.19, Statement of Switzerland, para 26; Official Records of the Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea, Volume II (Summary Records of Meetings of the First, Second and Third Committees, Second Session), 20th Meeting A/CONF.62/C.2/SR.20, Statement of Jamaica, para 95.

36 See Gudlaugsson, ST, ‘Natural Prolongation and the Concept of the Continental Margin for the Purposes of Article 76’ in MN Nordquist, JN Moore and T Heidar, Legal and Scientific Aspects of Continental Shelf Limits (Martinus Nijhoff 2004) 69 Google Scholar.

37 North Sea Continental Shelf Cases (n 13) [66]–[69].

38 Elferink, AG Oude, ‘Article 76 of the LOSC on the Definition of the Continental Shelf: Questions concerning Its Interpretation from a Legal Perspective’ (2006) 21(3) International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law 269 CrossRefGoogle Scholar, 273.

39 Kwiatkowska, B, The 200 Mile Exclusive Economic Zone in the New Law of the Sea (Martinus Nijhoff 1989) 11 Google Scholar.

40 Evans, MD, Relevant Circumstances and Maritime Delimitation (Clarendon Press 1989) 100 Google Scholar.

41 Delimitation of the Anglo-French Continental Shelf Arbitration (UK/France), (First) Decision, 30 June 1977, RIAA XVIII:3, 63; Continental Shelf (Tunisia/Libyan Arab Jamahiriya) (Judgment) [1982] ICJ Rep 18; Delimitation of the Maritime Boundary in the Gulf of Maine Area (Canada/United States) (Judgment) [1984] ICJ Rep 246; Continental Shelf (Libyan Arab Jarnahiriya/Malta) (Judgment) [1985] ICJ Rep 13.

42 Schofield, Telesetsky and Lee (n 12) 375.

43 Kim (n 31) 374.

44 Bangladesh/Myanmar (n 8) [406].

45 ibid [409].

46 ibid [408].

47 ibid [409].

48 ibid [437].

49 See also: Question of the Delimitation of the Continental Shelf between Nicaragua and Colombia Beyond 200 Nautical Miles from the Nicaraguan Coast (Nicaragua v Colombia), Joint Dissenting Opinion of Vice-President Yusuf, Judges Cançado Trindade, Xue, Gaja, Bhandari, Robinson and Judge ad hoc Brower [55] <http://www.icj-cij.org/files/case-related/154/judgment-17-march-2016-joint-dissenting-opinion.pdf>.

50 Nicaragua v Colombia (2012) (n 5) [127].

51 ibid.

52 ibid [125].

53 ibid [129]. Note, however, that the Court did not comment on the overlap between Nicaragua's entitlement to a continental shelf beyond 200 nm and the Colombian islands.

54 Nicaragua v Colombia (2016) (n 5) [82].

55 ibid [74].

56 ibid.

57 ibid [84].

58 ibid [82].

59 ibid [105]. (emphasis added)

60 ibid [85].

61 Bangladesh/Myanmar (n 8) [397].

62 Ø Jensen, ‘Maritime Boundary Delimitation beyond 200 Nautical Miles: The International Judiciary and the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf’ (2015) 84 NordJIntlL 580, 587.

63 This can be contrasted with the position that Colombia took in Nicaragua v Colombia (2012), in which one of the main arguments that it employed to object to Nicaragua's claim to an outer continental shelf was that ‘the so-called “evidence” that Nicaragua has adduced […] is woefully deficient, and would not even begin to satisfy the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf’. See Verbatim Record of the Public sitting held on Friday 27 April 2012, at 10 a.m., at the Peace Palace in the case concerning the Territorial and Maritime Dispute (Nicaragua v Colombia) p 53, para 46. <http://www.icj-cij.org/files/case-related/124/124-20120427-ORA-01-00-BI.pdf>.

64 Question of the Delimitation of the Continental Shelf between Nicaragua and Colombia Beyond 200 Nautical Miles from the Nicaraguan Coast (Nicaragua v Colombia), Preliminary Objections of the Republic of Colombia, Volume I [7.12] <http://www.icj-cij.org/files/case-related/154/18778.pdf>.

65 Joint Dissenting Opinion of Vice-President Yusuf, Judges Cançado Trindade, Xue, Gaja, Bhandari, Robinson and Judge ad hoc Brower (n 49) [56].

66 Ghana/Côte d'Ivoire (n 10) [503], [507].

67 ibid [498].

68 ibid [504].

69 ibid [505].

70 Dispute Concerning Delimitation of the Maritime Boundary between Ghana and Côte d'Ivoire in the Atlantic Ocean (Ghana/Côte d'Ivoire), Reply of Ghana <https://www.itlos.org/fileadmin/itlos/documents/cases/case_no.23_merits/pleadings/Reply_of_Ghana__Vol._I_.PDF>.

71 Ghana/Côte d'Ivoire (n 10) [515].

72 Several scholars have used the terms ‘delimitation’ and ‘delineation’ interchangeably; in particular, ‘delimitation’ has been used in place of ‘delineation’ when referring to the procedures under art 76 UNCLOS. See, eg, Macnab, R, ‘The Case for Transparency in the Delimitation of the Outer Continental Shelf in Accordance with UNCLOS Article 76’ (2004) 35 Ocean Development and International Law, 1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Rangel, V Marotta, ‘Settlement of Disputes Relating to the Delimitation of the Outer Continental Shelf: The Role of International Courts and Arbitral Tribunals’ (2006) 21(3) International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law 347 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

73 Bangladesh/Myanmar (n 8) [376].

74 ibid [397]–[399].

75 See Kunoy, B, ‘The Terms of Reference of the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf: A Creeping Legal Mandate’ (2012) 25(1) LJIL 109 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Elferink, AG Oude, ‘The Continental Shelf beyond 200 Nautical Miles: The Relationship between the CLCS and Third Party Dispute Settlement’ in AG Oude Elferink and D Rothwell, Oceans Management in the 21st Century: Institutional Frameworks and Responses (Brill 2004) 118 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

76 Bangladesh/Myanmar (n 8) [411].

77 ibid.

78 ibid [413].

79 ibid [377].

80 Bangladesh/India (n 9) [410].

81 B Kunoy, ‘The Admissibility of a Plea to an International Adjudicative Forum to Delimit the Outer Continental Shelf Prior to the Adoption of Final Recommendations by the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf’ (2010) 25 International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law 237.

82 Magnússon, BM, ‘Is there a Temporal Relationship between the Delineation and the Delimitation of the Continental Shelf beyond 200 Nautical Miles?’ (2013) 28 International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law 465 CrossRefGoogle Scholar, 483.

83 Canada/France (n 6) [81].

84 Nicaragua v Honduras (n 5) [319].

85 The ICJ cited the above statement in Nicaragua v Honduras. Note, however, that Judge Donoghue interpreted this citation as an implicit confirmation on the part of the Court that delimitation is precluded before the outer limits have been established. See: Territorial and Maritime Dispute (Nicaragua v Colombia), Separate Opinion of Judge Donoghue [25] <http://www.icj-cij.org/files/case-related/124/124-20121119-JUD-01-05-EN.pdf>.

86 Nicaragua v Colombia (2016) (n 5) [106].

87 ibid [112].

88 Nicaragua v Colombia, Written Statement of the Republic of Nicaragua to the Preliminary Objections of the Republic of Colombia (19 January 2015) [2.25], [2.27], [2.29], [2.31] <http://www.icj-cij.org/files/case-related/154/18780.pdf>.

89 Nicaragua v Colombia, Preliminary Objections of the Republic of Colombia, Volume I (14 August 2014) [5.68], [7.16] <http://www.icj-cij.org/files/case-related/154/18778.pdf>.

90 Johnson, C and Elferink, AG Oude, ‘Submissions to the CLCS in Cases of Unresolved Land and Maritime Disputes: The Significance of Article 76(10) of the LOS Convention’ (2006) 21 International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law 461 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

91 Bangladesh/Myanmar (n 8) [379].

92 Evans, MD, ‘Maritime Boundary Delimitation: Whatever Next?’ in J Barrett and R Barnes, Law of the Sea: UNCLOS as a Living Treaty (British Institute of International and Comparative Law 2016) 77 Google Scholar. In the recent Ghana/Côte d'Ivoire case, the Special Chamber of ITLOS also proceeded with delimitation in the absence of a recommendation for Côte d'Ivoire. Similar to the Bay of Bengal cases, both Ghana and Côte d'Ivoire are adjacent States, and neither contested the other's entitlement to a continental shelf beyond 200 nm.

93 Preliminary Objections of the Republic of Colombia (n 64) [7.16]. Note, however, that the ICJ did not address this point in its Judgment on Preliminary Objections, nor did any of the judges in their Dissenting and Separate Opinions share their view on this issue.

94 Bangladesh/Myanmar (n 8) [444].

95 Informal Suggestion by Sri Lanka to Amend the Irish Proposal, NG6/5, 4 April 1979, Platzöder, R (ed), Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea: Documents, Vol 9 (Oceana Publications 1982) 374 Google Scholar. See also Nicaragua v Colombia (2012) (n 5) [125].

96 Continental Shelf Submission of Union of Myanmar, 3 <http://www.un.org/Depts/los/clcs_new/submissions_files/mmr08/mmr_es.pdf>; Submission by the People's Republic of Bangladesh to the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf, para 6.5 <http://www.un.org/Depts/los/clcs_new/submissions_files/bgd55_11/Executive%20summary%20final.pdf>; The Indian Continental Shelf, Partial Submission to the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf, Pursuant to Article 76, paragraph 8 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, Appendix 1 <http://www.un.org/Depts/los/clcs_new/submissions_files/ind48_09/ind2009executive_summary.pdf>.

97 Bangladesh/Myanmar (n 8) [397].

98 Bangladesh/Myanmar, Separate Opinion of Judge Ndiaye [107] <https://www.itlos.org/fileadmin/itlos/documents/cases/case_no_16/C16.sep_op_Ndiaye.TR.E.pdf>.

99 ibid [119].

100 McDorman, T, ‘The Continental Shelf’ in Rothwell, D, Elferink, AG Oude, Scott, KN and Stephens, T (eds), The Oxford Handbook of the Law of the Sea (Oxford University Press 2015) 192 Google Scholar.

101 Kunoy (n 81) 248.

102 Bangladesh/Myanmar (n 8) (n 15) [393]

103 ibid.

104 See Magnusson (n 12) 138.

105 See, eg, the following maritime boundary agreements Mexico–United States, Trinidad and Tobago–Venezuela, Australia–France (New Caledonia), Australia–Solomon Islands, Australia–New Zealand, Australia (Heard and McDonald Islands)–France (Kerguelen Islands), Ireland–United Kingdom, Denmark–Iceland–Norway. See Lathrop, C, ‘Continental Shelf Delimitation beyond 200 Nautical Miles: Approaches Taken by Coastal States before the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf’ in Colson, DA and Smith, RW (eds), International Maritime Boundaries (Martinus Nijhoff 2005) 4149 Google Scholar.

106 For example, the 1975 Gambia–Senegal Agreement. See Magnusson (n 12) 187.

107 For example, the 1982 Australia–France Agreement, the 1988 Ireland–UK Agreement, the 1990 Trinidad and Tobago–Venezuela Agreement, the 2004 Australia–New Zealand Agreement. See Magnusson (n 12) 211.

108 Lathrop (n 105) 4150.

109 Arts 59 and 60 of ICJ Statute provide that ‘[t]he decision of the Court has no binding force except between the parties and in respect of that particular case’ and that ‘[t]he judgment is final and without appeal […]’ respectively. Art 296 UNCLOS also provide that ‘[a]ny decision rendered by a court or tribunal having jurisdiction under this section shall be final and shall be complied with by all the parties to the dispute’ and ‘[a]ny such decision shall have no binding force except between the parties and in respect of that particular dispute’.

110 Art 288(1) UNCLOS states that ‘A court or tribunal referred to in article 287 shall have jurisdiction over any dispute concerning the interpretation and application of this Convention which is submitted to it in accordance with this Part’. (emphasis added)

111 The ICJ in the Northern Cameroons cases declined to exercise jurisdiction over Cameroon's request, stating that ‘The function of the Court is to state the law, but it may pronounce judgment only in connection with concrete cases where there exists at the time of the adjudication an actual controversy involving a conflict of legal interests between the parties.’ See: Case Concerning the Northern Cameroons (Cameroon v United Kingdom) (Preliminary Objections) [1963] ICJ Rep 15 [33]–[34].

112 Bangladesh/Myanmar (n 8) [443].

113 ibid [464].

114 ibid [463].

115 Bangladesh/India (n 9) [498].

116 Bangladesh/Myanmar (n 8) [473]; Bangladesh/India (n 9) [504].

117 Bangladesh/Myanmar (n 8) [475], Bangladesh/India (n 9) [507]. Note that UNCLOS tribunals did not give any guidance on the obligation to have ‘due regard’ under the Convention entailed. It was not until the Chagos Marine Protected Area case that the contours of the obligation to give ‘due regard’ under art 56(2) was clarified. See Chagos Marine Protected Area Arbitration (Mauritius v United Kingdom), Award (18 March 2015) [518]–[519] <https://files.pca-cpa.org/pcadocs/MU-UK%2020150318%20Award.pdf>.

118 Note, however, that in the subsequent Bangladesh/India, Bangladesh changed its position regarding the grey area and endorsed the approach adopted by ITLOS in Bangladesh/Myanmar. India in this case did not address the question of the grey area. See Bangladesh/India (n 9) [501]–[502].

119 Bangladesh/Myanmar (n 8) [467].

120 ibid [468].

121 ibid [475].

122 ibid [476].

123 Bangladesh/India (n 9) [508].

124 Proelss (n 16) 421.

125 Libya/Malta (n 41) [34].

126 Bangladesh/India, Concurring and Dissenting Opinion of Dr PS Rao [31] <http://www.pcacases.com/web/sendAttach/384>.

127 For example, art 246 regulates coastal State's competence over marine scientific research in both the EEZ and continental shelf, arts 60 and 80 relating to artificial islands, installations and structures are exactly the same, Part XII on the protection and preservation of the marine environment applies to all maritime zones.

128 Sharma, SP, ‘The Single Maritime Boundary Regime and the Relationship between the Continental Shelf and the Exclusive Economic Zone’ (1987) 2 IJECL 203 Google Scholar.

129 Nordquist, MH (eds), United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea 1982: A Commentary, Vol II (Martinus Nijhoff 1985) 826 Google Scholar.

130 The Exclusive Economic Zone, Working Sessions, ILA 61st Conference, 26 August–1 September 1984; Allot, P, ‘Power Sharing in the Law of the Sea’ (1983) AJIL 1, 14 Google Scholar; O'Connell, DP, The International Law of the Sea, Vol II (Clarendon Press 1984) 580 Google Scholar; Leanza, U and Caracciolo, MC, ‘The Exclusive Economic Zone’ in Attard, D, Fitzmaurice, M and Gutierrez, NA Martinez (eds), The IMLI Manual on International Maritime Law, Vol I: The Law of the Sea (Oxford University Press 2014) 208 Google Scholar.

131 While a coastal State is entitled to the rights in the continental shelf independent of any express declaration, it may only exercise its rights in the EEZ after a specific declaration to that effect has been made. Although UNCLOS does not expressly provide for this declaration, it emerges from a contrario reading of art 77(3). See Leanza and Caracciolo (n 130) 185. As of 2011, there are 16 States which have not claimed an EEZ or a Fisheries Zone, namely Albania, Bahrain, Benin, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Ecuador, El Salvador, Greece, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Monaco, Montenegro, Peru, Saudia Arabia, Somalia and Sudan. <http://www.un.org/Depts/los/LEGISLATIONANDTREATIES/PDFFILES/table_summary_of_claims.pdf>.

132 See Bangladesh/Myanmar, Dissenting Opinion of Judge Lucky, at 56 <https://www.itlos.org/fileadmin/itlos/documents/cases/case_no_16/C16.diss_op.Lucky.rev.E.pdf>.

133 MD Evans (n 92) 71. See also MD Evans, ‘Maritime Boundary Delimitation’ in Rothwell et al. (n 100) 265. It is worth recalling that in Barbados v Trinidad and Tobago, Trinidad argued that its right to a continental shelf could not be ‘trumped’ by Barbados’ claim to an EEZ.[133] Similarly, in Nicaragua v Colombia (2012), Nicaragua also argued that ‘an entitlement to continental shelf based on the distance criterion does not take precedence over an entitlement based on the criterion of natural prolongation’.[133] The arbitral tribunal and ICJ did not address these questions.

134 Concurring and Dissenting Opinion of Dr RP Rao (n 126) [32].

135 For a summary of the different theories regarding the nature of the relationship between the EEZ and the continental shelf, see Evans, MD, ‘Delimitation and the Common Maritime Boundary’ (1993) 64(1) BYBIL 283 Google Scholar, 286–93.

136 Barbados v Trinidad and Tobago (n 7) [180].

137 ibid [244].

138 Bangladesh/Myanmar (n 8) [498].

139 For example, the Torres Strait Treaty between Australia and Papua New Guinea requires that residual jurisdiction, ie jurisdiction over the seabed or fisheries not related to the exploration and exploitation of these areas, is shared by the parties in the area of overlap and neither party can exercise this jurisdiction without the concurrence of the other. The Australian–Indonesia Maritime Boundary Treaty also recognizes areas in which the Australian continental shelf overlapping with the Indonesian EEZ, and art 7 provides for the regulation of this area. See Kaye, S, ‘The Use of Multiple Boundaries in Maritime Boundary Delimitation: Law and Practice’ (1998) 19 AustYBIL 49 Google Scholar.

140 Kaye (n 139) 71.

141 Concurring and Dissenting Opinion of Dr RP Rao (n 126) [35]–[36].

142 Dissenting Opinion of Judge Lucky (n 132) 56–60. Judge Lucky's argument relating to the power of the judge to find a legal solution in the absence of the law follows the broad approach he adopted in the Advisory Opinion on IUU Fishing, in which he used the argument of ‘UNCLOS as a living treaty’ to conclude that ITLOS had advisory jurisdiction even when UNCLOS does not explicitly provide for such jurisdiction.

143 Judge Golitsyn, President of ITLOS, indicated that when the delegation of ICJ judges, including President Peter Tomka, Judges Owada, Trindade, Xue, Gaja and Sebutinde, visited the Tribunal on 26 and 27 January 2015, one of the issues which the ICJ judges were interested in discussing with ITLOS judges was the delimitation of the outer continental shelf. See Judge Golitsyn, Expert Roundtable ‘ITLOS at 20: Impacts of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea’ London Centre for International Law and Practice, London (23 May 2016), Q&A Session (author's notes).