Author: ASMI BASU, JIS University
To the Point
Maritime boundary controversies arise when two or further countries claim lapping areas of the ocean.
UNCLOS (1982) is the governing law for the Maritime disputes. Governance controversies can be arbitrated by the International Court of Justice (ICJ), International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS), and arbitral bars under Annex VII of UNCLOS. Key Zones are Territorial Sea (12 nm), Exclusive Economic Zone (200 nm), Continental Shelf (over to 350 nm), Internal Waters, and High Swell.
Abstract
Maritime boundary disputes are among the most complex and contentious issues in international law, stemming from overlapping claims over ocean territories rich in resources or strategic value. These disputes are solved by the legal principles enshrined in the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), customary international law, and case precedents. This article dissects the causes, legal frameworks, and judicial mechanisms for resolving such disputes, alongside a study of landmark cases like the Nicaragua v. Colombia, Bangladesh v. Myanmar, and South China Sea Arbitration. It aims to provide a precise and legally grounded narrative on how sovereign maritime entitlements are defined, contested, and adjudicated.
Legal Jargon & Framework
Equidistance Principle is drawing line from the props of the disputing countries. Applicable Circumstances Doctrine allows divagation from strict equidistance due to geographic, profitable, or security enterprises. Delimitation is the process of fairly defining maritime boundaries between countries. Baseline is the starting point for measuring maritime zones. Can be normal (low- water line) or straight (used in archipelagic or deeply depressed beachfronts). Effectivities confirmation of effective administration or control over a maritime area.
The Proof
Why Disputes Arise
Geographic Proximity: Countries with adjacent or opposite coasts often have overlapping maritime claims.
Resource Wealth: Offshore oil, gas reserves, and fisheries provoke intensified claims.
Historic Claims vs. Legal Entitlements: States often invoke historic use which may conflict with legal rights under UNCLOS.
Lack of Bilateral Agreements: Absence of negotiated boundary treaties escalates to disputes.
Ambiguity in Coastal Geographies: Shifting coastlines, deltas, and islands complicate precise delimitation.
Case Laws
Bangladesh v. Myanmar (ITLOS, 2012)
Issue: EEZ and international shelf is eliminated in the Bay of Bengal.
Outgrowth: ITLOS departed from equidistance and applied indifferent principles, granting Bangladesh a hollow seacoast advantage.
Significance: Reinforced indifferent delimitation over geometric results.
Nicaragua v. Colombia (ICJ, 2012)
Issue: Sovereignty over islets and maritime delimitation in the Caribbean Sea.
Outgrowth: ICJ awarded utmost of the maritime space to Nicaragua but upheld Colombian sovereignty over several islets.
Significance: Clarifying the separation land’s sovereignty and rights over maritime zones.
South China Sea Arbitration (Philippines v. China, PCA, 2016)
Issue: legitimacy of China’s” nine-gusto line” and maritime features.
Outgrowth: Tribunal abrogated China’s extensive claims and clarified status of maritime features (jewels vs. islets).
Significance: Landmark ruling on artificial islets, environmental damage, and freedom of navigation.
Romania v. Ukraine (ICJ, 2009)
Issue: Delimitation in the Black Sea.
Outgrowth: ICJ applied a three- stage methodology
provisional equidistance line,
consideration of applicable circumstances, and
disproportionality test.
Significance: Established clear methodology for delimitation.
Qatar v. Bahrain (ICJ, 2001)
Issue: Maritime delimitation and territorial sovereignty over islets.
Outcome: ICJ is marked maritime boundary and allocated islets consequently.
Significance: Demonstrated the part of effectivities and title- grounded sovereignty.
Conclusion
Maritime boundary controversies, though specialized, have geopolitical and profitable ramifications that extend beyond the legal realm. UNCLOS, backed by judicial precedents, provides a comprehensive yet flexible frame for resolution. Courts and bars decreasingly calculate on indifferent principles rather than rigid formulas, allowing for nuanced adjudication grounded on terrain and major practice. still, legal resolution frequently requires countries’ political will to accept and apply rulings, which remains the biggest challenge in the maritime sphere.
FAQs
Q1: What is the legal basis for resolving maritime disputes?
A: The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), particularly Articles 15, 74, and 83, governs maritime boundary disputes. Dispute resolution can be pursued through ICJ, ITLOS, or arbitration under UNCLOS frameworks.
Q2: What if two countries do not agree on a tribunal’s decision?
A: While tribunal decisions are binding, enforcement depends on state compliance. Non-compliance may result in diplomatic pressure or international condemnation, but no enforcement mechanism exists beyond reputational or political costs.
Q3: What role does historic usage play in maritime claims?
A: Historic title may be considered, but it rarely supersedes the legal entitlements granted by UNCLOS unless clearly proven with long-standing and recognized use (e.g., fishing rights).
Q4: Are islands always entitled to an EEZ?
A: Not necessarily. Under Article 121(3) of UNCLOS, rocks that cannot sustain human habitation or economic life are not entitled to an EEZ or continental shelf.
Q5: Can artificial islands create maritime zones?
A: No. Artificial islands do not have territorial seas, EEZs, or continental shelf rights under international law (as confirmed in the South China Sea Arbitration, 2016).
Q6: What methods are used in delimitation?
A: Common methods include the equidistance/relevant circumstances approach and the three-stage methodology: drawing a provisional line, considering relevant circumstances, and testing for disproportionality.
