Contınental shelf delimitation and international jurısprudence: the case of islands

• Main Author: Lympereas, Panagiotis
• Other Authors: Tzimitras, Harry, Uluslararası ilişkiler
• Format: Thesis
• Language: English
• Published: İstanbul Bilgi Üniversitesi 2011
• Subjects: Canada; Greenland; Jan Mayen; Trinidad; Hale; Iceland
• Online Access: https://openaccess.bilgi.edu.tr/handle/11411/101

179 pages Adaların kıta sahanlığı, deniz sınırlarını sınırlandırmaya çalışan devletler için tartışmalıbir konu olmuştur. Uluslararası Adalet Divanı ve çeşitli ikili denizcilik uyuşmazlıklarını çözmegörevini üstlenmiş diğer Tahkim Mahkemeleri, uluslararası içtihatlarda kıta sahanlığınınsınırlandırılmasını yönlendirebilecek sabit kuralları pekiştirememiş, fakat tam aksine muğlakkararlarıyla konuyu daha da karmaşık hale getirmişlerdir. Mahkemeler sistematik olarak adalarınhaklarını ihlal etmiş ve çoğu olayda onları yalnızca davacı devletlerin iddialarını uzlaştırma aracıolarak görmüşlerdir. Dava incelemesi aracılığıyla -1969’dan 2009’a kadar olan hukuk-Mahkemelerin adaların kıta sahanlığının sınırlandırılmasıyla ilgili uygulaması ayrıntılı olarakçıkarılmaya çalışılmış ve aynı zamanda bu alandaki gerek sözleşmesel gerekse geleneksel hukukgelişimine katkılarına da ulaşılmıştır. The continental shelf of the islands was a controversial issue for the states whichattempted to delimit their maritime boundaries. The International Court of Justice and the otherArbitral Tribunals which undertook the task to resolve various bilateral maritime disputes didn’tmanage to consolidate in the international jurisprudence those fixed rules that would govern thedelimitation of the continental shelf, but quite the opposite they farther perplexed the issue withtheir ambiguous judgments. They infringed systematically upon the islands’ rights and in most ofthe cases they saw them, merely as a means to conciliate the claims of the litigant states. Throughthe study of the case law from 1969 up to 2009 is attempted to be traced in detail the practice ofthe courts as regards the delimitation of the continental shelf of the islands and at the same timeto be accessed their contribution to the development of both the conventional and customary lawin this field. Acknowledgements.ixList of Abbreviations.xIntroduction.1Chapter 1Conventional and Customary Law.71.1 Geneva Convention on the Continental Shelf. 81.2 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. 101.3 Customary Law.12Chapter 2Principles of Delimitation of the Continental Shelf between States with Opposite orAdjacent Coasts.152.1 Median/Equidistant Line Principle. 152.2 Special/Relevant Circumstances. 192.3 Equitable Principles/Equity.22viiChapter 3Courts Decisions.273.1 North Sea Continental Shelf Delimitation (ICJ, 1969). 273.2 Anglo – French Continental shelf Delimitation (Arbitration, 1977). 353.3 Continental Shelf Delimitation between Iceland and Jan Mayen (ConciliationCommission, 1981).413.4 Tunisia – Libya Continental Shelf Delimitation (ICJ, 1982). 463.5 Canada–USA (Gulf of Maine) Maritime Boundary Delimitation (ICJ, 1984). 543.6 Guinea–Guinea Bissau Maritime Boundary Delimitation (Arbitration, 1985). 613.7 Libya – Malta Continental Shelf Delimitation (ICJ, 1985). 673.8 Delimitation of Maritime Areas between Canada and France (Arbitration,1992).743.9 Maritime Delimitation in the Area between Greenland and Jan Mayen (ICJ,1993).823.10 Eritrea – Yemen Maritime Boundary Delimitation (Arbitration, 1999). 883.11 Qatar – Bahrain Maritime Boundary Delimitation (ICJ, 2001). 963.12 Cameroon – Nigeria Maritime Boundary Delimitation (ICJ, 2002). 1043.13 Barbados – Trinidad and Tobago Maritime Boundary Delimitation (Arbitration,2006).1093.14 Honduras – Nicaragua Maritime Boundary Delimitation (ICJ, 2007). 1173.15 Romania – Ukraine Maritime Boundary Delimitation (ICJ, 2009).124viiiChapter 4Conclusions.131Annexes. 136“A” Graphic Displays of the Continental Shelf. 137“B” UNCLOS Signature and Ratification Status. 140“C” Examples of Maritime Boundary Delimitations. 141“D” Maps. 142“E” Lists of the Judges of the Courts.160Bibliography. 163