FRAMEWORKS
3.5 Components of Conceptual Frameworks Related to the Research Model
216 UNCLOS, Art. 21 (1) (a) – (h).
91 The delimitation of maritime boundaries between sovereign States has occasioned much litigation before the International Court of Justice (ICJ) and Arbitral Tribunals because of the importanceof oil and other economic resources at stake.217 The jurisprudence on maritime boundaries delimitation is a convoluted one, in that the relevant cases have bothered on opposite or adjacent States; different maritime boundaries including territorial sea, exclusive economic/fishing zone, continental shelf boundaries or even a combination of them; the application of either customary international law or the 1958 or 1982 Conventions. Article 15 of the 1982 Convention on the Law of the Sea which basically follows Article 12 of the Geneva Convention on the Territorial Sea did provide as follow:
Where the coasts of two States are opposite or adjacent to each other,neither of the two States is entitled, failing agreement between them to thecontrary, to extend its territorial sea beyond the median line every point ofwhich is equidistant from the nearest points on the baselines from which thebreadth of the territorial seas of each of the two States is measured. Theabove provision does not apply, however, where it is necessary by reason ofhistoric title or other special circumstances to
217D. J. Harris, op it, p.488.
92 delimit the territorial seas of thetwo States in a way
which is at variance therewith.218
Despite the above provision however, a different application may occur as is seen in its second arm, where it became necessary by reason of historic title or other special circumstance to delimit the territorial sea of the two States in a different way.219
In the land and maritime boundary dispute between Nigeria and Cameroon,220 the two States, being adjacent States with a land border that extends to the sea in the south on the Gulf ofGuinea, requested the Court inter alia to delimit a “single maritime boundary”
beyond the limit of territorial sea that would divide both the continental shelves and Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) of the States. The Court in its judgment stated inter alia that both Nigeria and Cameroon are parties to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea 1982, and accordingly,Articles 74 and 83 of the Convention, which concern delimitation of continental shelf and the EEZ between States with opposite or adjacent coasts,221 would apply. The Court also noted that the Parties agreed in their written pleadings that the delimitation between the maritime areas should be effected by single line. As the Court had occasion to recall on its judgment of 16 March, 2001 in the case concerning maritime delimitation and territorial question between Qatar and Bahrain,222
The concept of a single maritime boundary does not stem from multilateral treaty law but from State
218The UNCLOS, Art. 15.See also in this, Qater v Bahrain (2001) ICJ Reports Para. 177.
219M. N. Shaw, op cit, p.506.
220(October 10, 2002) ICJ General list No. 94.
221Paragraph 1 of those Articles provides that such delimitation must be effected in such a way as to
“achieve an equitable solution”.
222Supra, Para. 173.
93 practice, and… finds its explanation in the wish of
States to establish one uninterrupted boundary line delimiting the various- partially coincident- zones of maritime jurisdiction appertaining to them.
The Chamber formed by the Court in the Case concerning the Delimitation of the Maritime Boundary in the Gulf of Marine Area between Canada and the United States of America had stated that the determination of such a line:
can only be carried out, by the application of a criterion, or combination of criteria, which does not give preferential treatment to one of the zones to the determinant of the other, and at the same time is such as to be equally suitable to the division of either of them.
The Court stressed in this connection that delimitation with a concern to achieving an equitable result, as required by current international law, is not the same as delimiting in equity. The Court in answer to the Cameroonian contentions maintained that concavity of the coastlines, islands etc may constitute relevant or special circumstances to be considered while embarking on maritime delimitation, but none of them formed a relevant circumstance in the present case as argued by Cameroon. The Court also, while denying the request of Cameroon acknowledged that a substantial difference in the length of the Parties‟ respective coastlines may be taken into consideration in order to adjust or to shift the provisional delimitation line. But, in the present case, according to the Court,
94 the relevant coastline of Cameroon … is not longer than that of Nigeria. Therefore, there is no reason to shift the equidistance line in favour of Cameroon on the ground….223
The Court accordingly decided after adequate consideration of relevant points raised by the parties,that the equidistance line represents an equitable result for the determination of the area in respect of which it has jurisdiction to give a ruling. As it relates to „relevant‟ circumstances that might call for a deviation from the equidistance line in order to achieve an „equitable result‟ as required in international law, in Cameroon v Nigeria the ICJidentified certain geographical features- the concave nature of a coastline, a lack of proportion between a State‟s coastline and the area of its jurisdictional zone and effect of Island and oil concession practice, but it finally did not find that any of these features required it to deviate from the equidistance on the fact.