The delimitation process has conceptually been considered to reflect preexisting maritime boundaries. This arises as the delimitation has not been seen to result in de novo lines as the delimitation process has been conceived as a declaratory exercise that necessarily arises from the ab initio nature of coastal States’ rights to the continental shelf. The International Court of Justice and Annex VII arbitral tribunals have followed a declarative understanding of delimitation. Accordingly, the extraction of hydrocarbons by a third State in a yet un-delimited area, which, pursuant to a judicial decision, would be recognized to be part of the continental shelf of the neighboring State, should, it is reasonable to assert, constitute an international wrongful act under international law and engage the international responsibility of the relevant State(s), except if authorized expressly by the relevant coastal State. This a priori uncontroversial understanding appears revisited by the Special Chamber of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea in the Ghana/Côte d’Ivoire case. According to the Special Chamber the delimitation consists in giving one entitlement priority over the other and therefore the delimitation of the continental shelf has a constitutive nature rather than declaratory. The approach of the Special Chamber can give rise to numerous intricate legal questions that may arise in future delimitation cases.

中文翻译：

---

从头定界线：定界的本构概念

从概念上讲，划界过程反映了先前存在的海上边界。之所以会出现这种情况，是因为尚未将定界视为重新界线，因为定界过程被认为是一种声明性练习，必定是从头开始的。沿海国对大陆架权利的性质。国际法院和附件七的仲裁庭对划界问题进行了声明性理解。因此，第三国在​​尚未划定界限的地区开采碳氢化合物，根据司法裁决，应将其视为邻国大陆架的一部分，如果合理断言，则应构成根据国际法的国际不法行为，并承担有关国家的国际责任，除非有关沿海国明确授权。加纳/科特迪瓦国际海洋法特别法庭似乎重新审视了这种先验的争议。案件。根据特别分庭的说法，划界是赋予一种权利优先于另一种权利，因此，大陆架的划界具有构成性质，而不是宣告性质。特别分庭的做法可能引起未来定案中可能出现的许多复杂的法律问题。