With the International Court of Justice (ICJ) moving away from the application of equitable principles in favour of its three-stage delimitation methodology, maritime boundary delimitations are now described as objective and predictable. This article assesses the accuracy of this description by examining the decisions of the Court and Tribunals in some recent delimitation cases. It is argued that the delimitation of maritime boundaries cannot still be regarded as objective and predictable as exemplified in the decisions discussed. Each of the three stages in the three-stage methodology, namely the drawing of a provisional equidistance line, the adjustment or shifting of that line based on the presence of relevant circumstances and the (dis)proportionality test will be analysed in order to support this position. This article identifies a fixation with following the three-stage methodology (even when inappropriate) as, ironically, the driver for subjectivity and unpredictability in maritime boundary delimitation decisions.

中文翻译：

---

国际法院海洋划界三阶段方法论背景下的客观性与主观性

随着国际法院（ICJ）不再适用公平原则，转而采用三阶段划界方法，海洋边界划定现在被描述为客观和可预测的。本文通过审查法院和法庭在最近一些划界案件中的裁决来评估这种描述的准确性。有人争辩说，海洋边界的划定仍然不能被视为客观和可预测的，正如所讨论的决定所例证的那样。将分析三阶段方法中的三个阶段中的每一个阶段，即临时等距线的绘制、根据相关情况的存在调整或移动该线以及（不）比例测试，以支持这一点位置。