The merits of this choice is that equidistance, referred as the "natural line" by Antunes, is an objective tool which reflects the basis of the entitlement to the continental shelf . It is furthermore a method that convenes more than any other the advantages of convenience and certainty in its application and could therefore be used widely as long as not resulting in an
Conjunction of all rules under a unique scheme is a big achievement. No precise rule within LOSC in order to achieve best interests for states and absence of agreement on means
- Consistently applied by international judicial bodies and works for EEZ, territorial sea, continental shelf and SMB = reasonable predictability of international bodies delimitations.
- got around the difficulty of the sui generis character of each maritime boundary differences in legal basis and variability of circumstances. = best scheme available
- "add science and calculations" to the process =>
- Can be relied on by states when settling negotiation if they are willing to do so in good faith. Admittedly there could still be debate outside judicial bodies on what is an equitable result.
- Enough because it settled for one method rather than alternative methods which would have necessarily lead to controversy between states because one method always more favourable than the other.
Not taking into account minor differences to avoid conflict arising on them.
Is there enough guidance regarding maritime boundaries in international law?
1.
1.1. A convenient three step process with a starting and ending point that conciliate stability and flexibility build by international judicial bodies
Following the wide ratification and entry into force of the Law o...
... middle of paper ...
... hypothetical, could still have consequences. While judicial decisions are not subject to appeal, an agreement could still be asked to be renegotiated by one party. In such a situation, the two possible outcomes would be unsatisfying : either the parties will agree to renegotiate and it would hurt at least the permanent character of maritime boundaries ; or in the worst case, could it lead to political tensions, especially so if the boundaries have been agreed without any or little legal basis.
Consequently, it is not possible at the moment to state that one means of settling boundaries is best suited for all the different political situations. It is still possible that whereas negotiations could only ever work when states have close enough diplomatic ties because no mutual or unilateral concession can be made outside of a legal context without mutual trust.
Under the UN 1982 treaty, a state’s territorial sea extends twelve nautical miles from the national coastline (Slomanson 305). Within this area, Ecuador exercises its sovereignty over these waters as if it were a landmass (Slomanson 305). All aspects of the sea are under its control, including the seabed and airspace. Furthermore, Ecuador is allowed to impose laws that regulate the territory and consume resources that lie inside this defined area. Within this territorial sea, Ecuador “must exercise its sovereign power in this adjacent strip of water” (Slomanson 305). Additionally, Ecuador is expected to chart this water and to provide warning of navigational hazards (Slomanson 305). However, Ecuador did not act upon this and was “lax in enforcing it”. In 1951, the International Court of Justice issued this statement in response to a ruling:
settlement, though subject to the sovereignty of the crown. The only party can loose in a
United Nations , "United Nations and Convention on the Law of the Sea:Division for Ocean Affairs and the LAw of the Sea." Accessed November 27, 2013. http://www.un.org/depts/los/convention_agreements/texts/unclos/UNCLOS-TOC.htm.
which proved that more than a compromise was needed to resolve it. The
There are many tactics that both sides can and do use to try and get the other side to yield first, when negotiations are under way. Uni...
For our government to function it must be able to resolve the conflicts that arise as a result of this ‘struggle’. The rule of law is the principle that enables reconciliation and its primacy to the successful implementation of our government cannot be understated. Simply stated t...
In 1992, the doctrine of terra nullius was overruled by the High Court in the case Mabo v Queensland (No.2) [1992] HCA 23. After recognising that the Meriam people of Murray Island in the Torres Straits were native title landholders of their traditional land, the court also held that native title existed for all the Indigenous people in Australia prior to European contact. To make the legal position of landholders and the processes that must be followed in claiming native title clear, the federal government passed the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth). The Native Title, which was drafted in 1993, attempted to provide a fair and just method of dealing with land in the future. However one of the fundamental flaws of the native title system is that the concept of native title was based on the prejudiced principle that the Crown had the power to extinguish traditional indigenous ownership of the land. Although the government could have been able to amend the flaws of the Native Title Act following the High Court’s decision in relation to the Wik Case, which laid the rules for co-existence and reconciliation of shared interests in the land, they failed to do so. Amendments to the Native Title Act in 1998 undermined any benefits the Indigenous people could have received, and provided the already-powerful non-Indige...
According to Article 38 of the 1946 Statute of the International Court of Justice, the Court shall apply “international custom, as evidence of a general practice accepted as law” in its decisions (Kritsiotis 123). In other words, the International Court of Justice cites customs as a formal source of law. According to Roberto Unger, author of Law in a Modern Society, customary international law is best defined as “any recurring mode of interaction among individuals and groups, together with the more or less explicit acknowledgement of these groups and individuals that such patterns of interaction produce reciprocal expectations of conduct that out to be satisfied (Shaw 72-73). In other words, customary international laws are primarily concerned with how and why sates behave in a particular manner. Customs derive from the behavior of states (state practice) and the subconscious belief that a behavior is inherently legal (opinio juris). Evidence of state behavior is documented in the decisions of domestic courts, international courts, and international organizations. Unlike treaty law, customary laws are binding on all states. Additionally, if a treaty derives from a custom it is also binding on all states. Some of the international court cases that have been instrumental in the development of customary international law include the Nicaragua v. United States case, the Anglo-Norwegian Fisheries case, the Scotia case, the Asylum case, the Paquete Habana case, and the Lotus case.
Solution." Indiana Journal Of Global Legal Studies 18.2 (2011): 901-927. Academic Search Complete. Web. 26 Apr. 2014.
...on that is final (the parties in conflict don’t reach a decision together like in conciliation).
International law is a body of legally binding rules that are suppose to govern the relations between sovereign states. (Cornell Law School) In order to be a qualified subject, a state has to be sovereign. To be considered sovereign the state needs to have territory, a population, and a government that is recognized or legitimized to most other states. In the more modern explanation of international law now can include the rights and obligation on intergovernmental international organizations and even individuals. Examples of an international organization would be Greenpeace or the United Nations and an example of an individual would be war criminals, a leader of a state that violated human rights during a time of war. When a dispute arise and cannot be solved amongst the two actors involved they can turn to the U.N. to arbitrate and to the International Court of Justice, one of many courts within the U.N. to find a resolution to their problem. The International Court of Justice’s main task is to help settle legal disputes submitted to it by states and...
...is act as a guideline for the negotiators. This is because negotiation is part of problem-solving method. Basically, negotiation is used to resolve a conflict or argument without offending others. In addition, it is done by peaceful manners. Nevertheless, negotiation in diplomacy is not only limits within the context of international relations, but, it also can be applied in our daily life communication with one another.
Origins for the cooperation amongst powers necessary to tackle international disputes can be traced back to the 19th century, however the formation of the League of Nations was eagerly prompted by the First World War. After the horrors in which the world observed, leaders merged together and rejoiced in the potential for a new international system. The League of Nations foremost objective was to secure peace through collective efforts of ‘peace-loving’ powers (Steans, Pettiford, & Diez, 2005, p. 31). President Woodrow Wilson was a lead proponent in the creation of such a body, suggesting it- within his message on the Conditions of Peace- as a means of ‘affording mutual guarantees of political independence and territorial integrity to great and small states alike’ (Wilson, 1918). The following year a detailed scheme was presented at the Versailles Peace Conference and the league was swiftly established with the addition of a permanent secretariat in Geneva. (Catterall, 1999, p. 50). The League was very much considered the ‘most daring and innovative proposal’ (Wilkinson, 2007, p. 85)
...ccordance with international law, it is demonstrative of treating others as you wish to be treated.
The lives and prosperity of millions of people depend on peace and, in turn, peace depends on treaties - fragile documents that must do more than end wars. Negotiations and peace treaties may lead to decades of cooperation during which disputes between nations are resolved without military action and economic cost, or may prolong or even intensify the grievances which provoked conflict in the first place. In 1996, as Canada and the United States celebrated their mutual boundary as the longest undefended border in the world, Greece and Turkey nearly came to blows over a rocky island so small it scarcely had space for a flagpole.1 Both territorial questions had been raised as issues in peace treaties. The Treaty of Ghent in 1815 set the framework for the resolution of Canadian-American territorial questions. The Treaty of Sevres in 1920, between the Sultan and the victorious Allies of World War I, dismantled the remnants of the Ottoman Empire and distributed its territories. Examination of the terms and consequences of the two treaties clearly establishes that a successful treaty must provide more than the absence of war.