Lines of Dilineation - Case briefs for cases regarding this topic. PDF

Preview

Summary

Case briefs for cases regarding this topic....

Description

U.K. v. Norway FACTS: 

  

Norway had claimed that its coast line started at the “skjaergaard” a group of islets on the coast on the country – from there Norway had determined its it line of delimitation of the fishery zone No one had fished in zone other than the Norwegians for years In 1911 British travelers began fishing in these zones; following this there many arrests because UK refused to recognize this zone UK then started this proceeding to determine where the line of delineation could be drawn

ISSUE: 

Whether the relevant delineation mark is of the mainland or the “skjaergaard”

RULE:  

The line of the low-water mark cannot be the rule requiring the coastline to be followed in all situations (each country will have a different line of delineation) Analysis: are certain sea areas lying withing the base-line sufficiently closely linked to the land to be subject to regime of internal waters o Need to look at the particular usage in that region/country

REASON:  

In this region the inhabitants derive their livelihood from fishing The current system in use by Norwegian authorities for delineation has been used consistently & uninterruptedly for years

HOLDING: 

Delineation mark here is the skjaergaard

NOTES:

Germany v. Denmark & Netherlands p. 547

FACTS:    

Denmark and Netherlands had drawn the lines between their coasts as well as between them and Germany based on the equidistance principle Germany never ratified the convention; they did not agree with the lines draw and argued that they were not bound to the equidistance principle Denmark & Netherlands argued that the equidistance principle was now customary international law The three countries agreed to ask ICJ for ruling on which principle & rules of international law governed in diving the shelf amongst them

ISSUE: 

Is the equidistance principle customary international law

RULE:  

Equidistance principle is not binding international law (merely suggestion in the convention) Delimitation must be the object of agreement between the states concerned, and such agreements must be arrived at in accordance with equitable principles

REASON:    

Noted in convention that states can make reservation regarding the Art 6 (article discussing this principle) The convention, although 37 states had been a party at the time, had not gained widespread acceptance just yet It is an emerging practice and very new – need more time No states that have used this principle regard it as a legal obligation

HOLDING:  

Equidistance principle is not customary international law Three states must negotiate

NOTES:  

Equidistance Principle: a rule based on the shape of the coastline, the line is drawn that each point on it is equidistant from the nearest point on the coastline What states should consider during negotiations 1. General configuration of the coasts 2. Physical & geological structure, and natural resources, of the continental shelf 3. Reasonable degree of proportionality

Canada v. U.S. 

Concerning Delimitation of the Maritime Boundary of the Gulf of Maine



   

Relevant circumstances o US had longer & larger extent of fishing by U.S. fisherman in this area o Until recently the US has almost exclusively dominated the area o US has been responsible for this are for more than 200 years Equitableness is assessed in relation to the circumstances of each case Need to balance the most appropriate criteria for this situation/case Equality of the area should be the starting point and modified in this case to correspond to the difference in the lengths of the coasts Since each nation got a part of it there would not be serious economic consequences on either side

Philippines v. China    



Philippines filed claim against China for infringment of their rights under UNCLOS China claimed historic right within the nine-dash line - this is located in Philippine’s EEZ Tribunal did not the nine-dash line is not compatible with UNCLOS - however did not say China's actions were illegal Islands in Spratlys were the issue- Philippines argue those Chinese Islands are not entitled to an EEZ or continental shelf under Article 121; because no human or economic life can be sustained there o CT agreed with Philippines o What does this mean? No areas od overlapping EEZ - China has no rights in this are, exclusive right of the Philippines Mischief Reef, a low-tide elevation not an island, and within EEZ of Philippines Philippines controls the Mischief Reef...