No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Delimitation methodology for the continental shelf beyond 200 nautical miles: Three-stage approach as a way forward?
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 28 November 2023
Abstract
Delimitation of the continental shelf beyond 200 nautical miles (nm) is a relatively novel exercise by international courts and tribunals, and a question that assumes theoretical and practical importance is whether the delimitation methodology primarily developed in maritime delimitation within 200 nm can be applied to the delimitation beyond that distance. In contrast to some prevailing arguments that the delimitation methodology for the continental shelf beyond 200 nm should somewhat differ, this article examines whether the delimitation beyond 200 nm can be integrated under the three-stage approach articulated by the ICJ in the 2009 Black Sea case and discusses what methodological problems have been raised in the delimitation process. By analysing the applicability and application of the three-stage approach to the continental shelf delimitation beyond 200 nm in the jurisprudence, this article argues that substantive integration of the delimitation methodology for the continental shelf beyond 200 nm has taken place and is likely to continue. The integrated approach to the delimitation methodology adopted in the Bangladesh v. India case and the Ghana/Côte d’Ivoire case may prove to be guiding precedents that indicate a way forward in the jurisprudence.
Keywords
- Type
- ORIGINAL ARTICLE
- Information
- Copyright
- © The Author(s), 2023. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of The Foundation of the Leiden Journal of International Law in association with the Grotius Centre for International Law, Leiden University
References
1 Delimitation of the Maritime Boundary in the Bay of Bengal (Bangladesh/Myanmar), Judgment of 14 March 2012, [2012] ITLOS Rep. 4, at 132, para. 506(6).
2 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, 1833 UNTS 396.
3 Bay of Bengal Maritime Boundary Arbitration (Bangladesh v. India), 167 ILR 1 (2014), para. 509(3).
4 Delimitation of the Maritime Boundary in the Atlantic Ocean (Ghana/Côte d’Ivoire), Judgment of 23 September 2017, [2017] ITLOS Rep. 4, at 145, para. 540.
5 Maritime Delimitation in the Indian Ocean (Somalia v. Kenya), Judgment of 12 October 2021, [2021] ICJ Rep. 206, at 277, para. 196.
6 See the Question of the delimitation of the continental shelf between Nicaragua and Colombia beyond 200 nautical miles from the Nicaraguan Coast (Nicaragua v. Colombia) case, available at www.icj-cij.org/en/case/154. The Court, however, decided to reject Nicaragua’s delimitation claim for ‘under customary international law, a State’s entitlement to a continental shelf beyond 200 nautical miles from the baselines from which the breadth of its territorial sea is measured may not extend within 200 nautical miles from the baselines of another State’. See Question of the delimitation of the continental shelf between Nicaragua and Colombia beyond 200 nautical miles from the Nicaraguan Coast (Nicaragua v. Colombia), Judgment of 13 July 2023, paras. 79, 86. In the Delimitation of the Maritime Boundary between Mauritius and Maldives in the Indian Ocean case (‘Mauritius/Maldives case’), Mauritius requested a special chamber of ITLOS to delimit the continental shelf beyond 200 nm, but the special chamber decided not to proceed to the delimitation beyond 200 nm because it ‘is not in a position to determine the entitlement of Mauritius to the continental shelf beyond 200 nm in the Northern Chagos Archipelago Region’. See Dispute Concerning Delimitation of the Maritime Boundary between Mauritius and Maldives in the Indian Ocean (Mauritius/Maldives), ITLOS, Judgment of 28 April 2023, paras. 450, 458.
7 See UNCLOS, supra note 2, Art. 76(4)–(7).
8 Ibid., Art. 57, Art. 76(1).
9 See D. Colson, ‘The Delimitation of the Outer Continental Shelf between Neighboring States’, (2003) 97 American Journal of International Law 91, at 107; Ø. Jensen, ‘The Delimitation of the Continental Shelf beyond 200 nm: Substantive Issues’, in A. G. Oude Elferink, T. Henriksen and S.V. Busch (eds.), Maritime Boundary Delimitation: The Case Law: Is It Consistent and Predictable? (2018), 351, at 371–2; J. Gao, ‘The Delimitation Method for the Continental Shelf Beyond 200 Nautical Miles: A Reflection on the Judicial and Arbitral Decisions’, (2020) 51 Ocean Development & International Law 116, at 134; R. Churchill, V. Lowe and A. Sander, The Law of the Sea (2022), 351. For contrary views, see Bangladesh/Myanmar, supra note 1, at 190 (Judge Cot, Separate Opinion); B. M. Magnússon, ‘The Rejection of a Theoretical Beauty: The Foot of the Continental Slope in Maritime Boundary Delimitations beyond 200 Nautical Miles’, (2014) 45 Ocean Development & International Law 41, at 49.
10 Maritime Delimitation in the Black Sea (Romania v. Ukraine), Judgment of 3 February 2009, [2009] ICJ Rep. 61, at 101, para. 116; Territorial and Maritime Dispute (Nicaragua v. Colombia), Judgment of 19 November 2012, [2012] ICJ Rep. 624, at 696, para. 194.
11 See Black Sea, ibid., at 112, para. 155.
12 Ibid., at 103, para. 122.
13 Since the Black Sea case, the ICJ employed the three-stage approach in the 2012 Nicaragua v. Colombia case, 2014 Peru v. Chile case, 2018 Costa Rica v. Nicaragua case, and 2021 Somalia v. Kenya case. UNCLOS tribunals followed the three-stage approach in the 2012 Bangladesh/Myanmar case, 2014 Bangladesh v. India case, and 2017 Ghana/Côte d’Ivoire case.
14 Maritime Delimitation in the Caribbean Sea and the Pacific Ocean (Costa Rica v. Nicaragua), Judgment of 2 February 2018, [2018] ICJ Rep. 139, at 190, para. 135.
15 Possible legal effects of sea-level rise on maritime delimitation were considered by the International Law Commission Study Group on sea-level rise in relation to international law, which suggested that ‘in order to preserve legal stability, security, certainty and predictability, it is necessary to preserve existing maritime delimitations, either effected by agreement or by adjudication, notwithstanding the coastal changes produced by sea-level rise’. ‘Sea-level rise in relation to international law, First issues paper by Bogdan Aurescu and Nilüfer Oral, Co-Chairs of the Study Group on sea-level rise in relation to international law (A/CN.4/740)’, International Law Commission (Seventy-second session, Geneva, 27 April–5 June and 6 July–7 August 2020), at 141.
16 See discussion in Section 3.1, infra.
17 The most widely cited formula concerning relevant coasts and relevant area originates in the 1982 Tunisia/Libya case. See Continental Shelf (Tunisia/Libyan Arab Jamahiriya), Judgment of 24 February 1982, [1982] ICJ Rep. 18, at 61, paras. 74–75. See also A. G. Oude Elferink, ‘Relevant Coasts and Relevant Area - The Difficulty of Developing General Concepts in a Case-Specific Context’, in Oude Elferink, Henriksen and Busch supra note 9, at 178.
18 See Black Sea, supra note 10, at 99, para. 110; Costa Rica v. Nicaragua, supra note 14, paras. 108, 116.
19 See Black Sea, ibid., at 89, para. 78.
20 Ibid.
21 See Jensen, supra note 9, at 368.
22 In fact, even in the ‘unusual circumstance’ of the 2012 Nicaragua v. Colombia case, where a large part of the relevant area defined by the ICJ lies to the east of the Colombian islands, the ICJ found it appropriate to start with a provisional equidistance line. See Nicaragua v. Colombia I, supra note 10, at 697, para. 195.
23 As summarized by the North Sea cases, a ‘fundamentalist aspect’ of the contentions of Denmark and the Netherlands is that, ‘the equidistance principle is seen as a necessary expression in the field of delimitation of the accepted doctrine of the exclusive appurtenance of the continental shelf to the nearby coastal State, and therefore as having an a priori character of so to speak juristic inevitability’. North Sea Continental Shelf Cases (Federal Republic of Germany/Denmark; Federal Republic of Germany/Netherlands), Judgment of 20 February 1969, [1969] ICJ Rep. 3, at 29, para. 37.
24 See Gao, supra note 9, at 132.
25 Maritime Boundary Arbitration (Barbados v. Trinidad and Tobago), XXVII RIAA 147 (2006), para. 233.
26 See K. Highet, ‘The Use of Geophysical Factors in the Delimitation of Maritime Boundaries’, in J. I. Charney and L.M. Alexander (eds.), International Maritime Boundaries, Vol. I (1993), 163 at 196; Colson, supra note 9, at 107.
27 See Delimitation of the Maritime Boundary in the Gulf of Maine Area (Canada/United States of America), Judgment of 20 January 1984, [1984] ICJ Rep. 246, at 327, para. 194; Barbados v. Trinidad and Tobago, supra note 25, para. 228.
28 See Churchill, Lowe and Sander, supra note 9, at 351. See also B. Kunoy, ‘A Geometric Variable Scope of Delimitations: The Impact of a Geological and Geomorphologic Title to the Outer Continental Shelf’, (2006) 11 Austrian Review of International and European Law 49, at 50.
29 See Somalia v. Kenya, Merits, supra note 5, at 276, para. 195.
30 See Bangladesh/Myanmar, supra note 1, at 117, para. 454.
31 A. G. Oude Elferink, ‘ITLOS’s Approach to the Delimitation of the Continental Shelf Beyond 200 Nautical Miles in the Bangladesh/Myanmar case: Theoretical and Practical Difficulties’, in R. Wolfrum, M. Seršić and T. Šošić (eds.), Contemporary Developments in International Law: Essays in Honour of Budislav Vukas (2015), 230, at 240; see Gao, supra note 9, at 129.
32 Continental Shelf (Libyan Arab Jamahiriya/Malta), Judgment of 3 June 1985, [1985] ICJ Rep. 13, at 30, para. 28.
33 Territorial and Maritime Dispute between Nicaragua and Honduras in the Caribbean Sea (Nicaragua v. Honduras), Judgment of 8 October 2007, [2007] ICJ Rep. 659, at 741, para. 270.
34 See Bangladesh v. India, supra note 3, at 158, para. 465.
35 See Ghana/Côte d’Ivoire, supra note 4, at 142, para. 526.
36 See Barbados v. Trinidad and Tobago, supra note 25, para. 213.
37 Ibid., para. 213.
38 See Gao, supra note 9, at 128.
39 See Ghana/Côte d’Ivoire, supra note 4, at 133, para. 477.
40 See Gulf of Maine, supra note 27, at 327, para. 194.
41 Ibid., at 327, para. 194.
42 See M. D. Evans, ‘Delimitation and the Common Maritime Boundary’, (1994) 64 British Yearbook of International Law 283, at 321.
43 Ibid., at 330.
44 See Gulf of Maine, supra note 27, at 326, para. 192; Delimitation of the Continental Shelf between the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and the French Republic (United Kingdom/France), 18 RIAA 3 (1978), at 1173, para. 82.
45 Maritime Delimitation and Territorial Questions (Qatar v. Bahrain), Merits, Judgment of 16 March 2001, [2001] ICJ Rep. 40, at 93, para. 173.
46 Ibid., paras. 174, 224; see Costa Rica v. Nicaragua, supra note 14, paras. 170, 176.
47 See Ghana/Côte d’Ivoire, supra note 4, at 82–3, paras. 262–263.
48 See Section 4.2, infra.
49 This was in fact hinted at by the Bangladesh/Myanmar case, as ITLOS stressed that ‘this method can, and does in this case, permit resolution also beyond 200 nm of the problem of the cut-off effect’. See Bangladesh/Myanmar, supra note 1, at 117, para. 455.
50 Delimitation of the Maritime Boundary between Guinea and Guinea-Bissau (Guinea/Guinea-Bissau), XIX RIAA 149 (1985), para. 89.
51 See Somalia v. Kenya, supra note 5, at 251, para. 128; Bangladesh v. India, supra note 3, at 114, para. 345; Ghana/Côte d’Ivoire, supra note 4, at 89, para. 289.
52 See Ghana/Côte d’Ivoire, ibid., at 103, para. 361.
53 M. D. Evans, ‘Relevant Circumstances’, in Oude Elferink, Henriksen and Busch, supra note 9, at 233.
54 B. Kunoy, ‘The Delimitation of an Indicative Area of Overlapping Entitlement to the Outer Continental Shelf’, (2013) 83 British Yearbook of International Law 61, at 66.
55 See Oude Elferink, supra note 31, at 240.
56 See Bangladesh v. India case, supra note 3, at 99, para. 299.
57 Ibid., at 99–100, paras. 300–303.
58 See Ghana/Côte d’Ivoire, supra note 4, at 105, para. 373.
59 See B. Kunoy, ‘The Delimitation of Outer Continental Shelf Areas: A Critical Analysis of Courts’ and Tribunals’ Heterogeneous Approaches’, (2022) Canadian Yearbook of International Law 1, at 13; International Law Association, ‘Preliminary Report of the Committee on Legal Issues of the Outer Continental Shelf’, (2002) Report of the Seventieth Conference, 741 at 9, available at www.ila-hq.org/en_GB/documents/conference-report-new-delhi-2002-17.
60 See Oude Elferink, supra note 17, at 194; M. Lando, Maritime Delimitation as a Judicial Process (2018), 73–81.
61 On the legal and technical complexities of identifying relevant coasts see S. Fietta and R. Cleverly, A Practitioner’s Guide to Maritime Boundary Delimitation (2016), 595–9.
62 See Bangladesh v. India, supra note 3, at 100, para. 302.
63 Transparency has been emphasized by UNCLOS tribunals as one of the ‘additional objectives’ to be achieved in the delimitation process. Ibid., at 112, para. 339; see Ghana/Côte d’Ivoire, supra note 4, at 90, para. 289.
64 See UNCLOS, supra note 2, Annex II, Art. 3.
65 See Scientific and Technical Guidelines of the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf, Doc. CLCS/11 (13 May 1999), paras 2.2.6, 2.2.8.
66 See Summary of Recommendations of the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf in regard to the Submission made by the Cook Islands in respect of the Manihiki Plateau (19 August 2016), paras. 96, 100, available at www.un.org/Depts/los/clcs_new/submissions_files/cok23_09/2016_08_19_com_sumrec_cok.pdf.
67 See Bangladesh/Myanmar, supra note 1, at 115, para. 444; Bangladesh v. India, supra note 3, at 146, para. 438.
68 See Busch supra note 9, at 342–3.
69 See Ghana/Côte d’Ivoire, supra note 4, at 136, para. 491.
70 Ibid.
71 Ibid., paras. 385, 515.
72 Summary of Recommendations of the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf in regard to the Amended Submission made by the Republic of Côte d’Ivoire, 5 February 2020, para. 58, available at www.un.org/Depts/los/clcs_new/submissions_files/cvi42_09/2020_02_05_COM_SUMREC_CIV_web.pdf.
73 Ibid., paras. 75–84.
74 See Black Sea, supra note 10, at 89, para. 77.
75 Ibid., at 100, para. 111; see Nicaragua v. Colombia I, supra note 10, at 716, para. 242.
76 See M. Lando, ‘Delimiting the Continental Shelf Beyond 200 Nautical Miles at the International Court of Justice: The Nicaragua v. Colombia Cases’, (2017) 16 Chinese Journal of International Law 137, at 153–4.
77 See Summary of Recommendations to Côte d’Ivoire, supra note 72, para. 72.
78 See Kunoy, supra note 59, at 28.
79 See Somalia v. Kenya, supra note 5, at 276, para. 194.
80 Annex II to the Final Act of the Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea, UN Doc. A/CONF.62/121 (27 October 1982).
81 Executive Summary of Kenya’s Submission to the CLCS in April 2009, paras. 2–5, available at www.un.org/Depts/los/clcs_new/submissions_files/ken35_09/ken2009_executivesummary.pdf.
82 See S. V. Busch, Establishing Continental Shelf Limits beyond 200 Nautical Miles by the Coastal State: A Right of Involvement for Other States? (2016), 197–8; X. Liao, The Continental Shelf Delimitation Beyond 200 Nautical Miles: Towards A Common Approach to Maritime Boundary-Making (2021), 138–9.
83 The CLCS applied the Statement of Understanding to establish the outer edge of the continental margin of Kenya, even though the Commission noted that ‘there was a difference of views as to the interpretation and applicability of the provisions relating to its implementation among States’. See Summary of Recommendations of the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf in regard to the Submission made by the Republic of Kenya on 6 May 2009 (7 March 2023), paras. 27, 73, available at www.un.org/Depts/los/clcs_new/submissions_files/ken35_09/20230307ComSumRecKen.pdf. Interestingly, the CLCS did not take into account the maritime boundary established by the ICJ in the Somalia v. Kenya case, which predated the Recommendations. For instance, the FOS point 10 submitted by Kenya is located to the north of the maritime boundary established by the ICJ, that is, on Somalia’s side. However, the CLCS approved this FOS point without considering the ICJ judgment. This approach was in sharp contrast with that adopted in the Recommendations to Côte d’Ivoire, in which the CLCS requested Côte d’Ivoire to re-examine two FOS points that were located on Ghana’s side of maritime boundary after the special chamber rendered the judgment in the Ghana/Côte d’Ivoire case. See Summary of Recommendations to Côte d’Ivoire, supra note 72, para. 53.
84 See Somalia v. Kenya, supra note 5, at 276, para. 193.
85 Ibid., at 286, para. 4 (President Donoghue, Separate Opinion).
86 The initial and the last stage of the delimitation methodology were applied to maritime delimitation within 200 nm only. Ibid., paras. 137, 141, 177.
87 See Bangladesh/Myanmar, supra note 1, at 73–6, paras. 266–273.
88 Ibid., at 89, paras. 334–336.
89 Ibid., at 118, para. 462.
90 See Somalia v. Kenya, supra note 5, para. 195.
91 See Bangladesh/Myanmar, supra note 1, at 92, para. 343.
92 Ibid., at 109, para. 417.
93 Ibid., at 92, para. 341.
94 See Somalia v. Kenya, supra note 5, paras. 25–26.
95 See Bangladesh v. India, supra note 3, at 158, paras. 462–463.
96 See Ghana/Côte d’Ivoire, supra note 4, at 113, para. 400.
97 See Bangladesh/Myanmar, supra note 1, at 184 (Judge Cot, Separate Opinion).
98 Ibid., at 189 (Judge Cot, Separate Opinion).
99 See Nicaragua v. Colombia I, supra note 10, at 696, para. 194.
100 See Oude Elferink, supra note 31, at 241–2.
101 See Barbados v. Trinidad and Tobago, supra note 25, para. 231.
102 See Guinea/Guinea Bissau, supra note 50, para. 103; Land and Maritime Boundary between Cameroon and Nigeria (Cameroon v. Nigeria: Equatorial Guinea intervening), Judgment of 10 October 2002, [2002] ICJ Rep. 303, at 445, para. 297; Bangladesh/Myanmar, supra note 1, at 81, para. 282; Bangladesh v. India, supra note 3, at 133, paras. 403–405.
103 See Bangladesh/Myanmar, supra note 1, at 118, para. 461; Bangladesh v. India, supra note 3, at 161, paras. 473–475.
104 See Ghana/Côte d’Ivoire, supra note 4, at 119–21, paras. 421–426.
105 See Somalia v. Kenya, supra note 5, at 335–44, paras. 29–33 (Judge Robinson, Individual Opinion, Partly Concurring and Partly Dissenting); ibid., at 290–2, paras. 11–15 (Judge Abraham, Separate Opinion); ibid., at 306–7, paras. 38–39 (Judge Yusuf, Separate Opinion).
106 See North Sea, supra note 23, at 49, para. 89; Bangladesh v. India, supra note 3, at 136, para. 414.
107 See Barbados v. Trinidad and Tobago, supra note 25, para. 316.
108 See Bangladesh/Myanmar, Memorial of Bangladesh, Volume I (1 July 2010), at 83, para. 6.43.
109 See Bangladesh/Myanmar, supra note 1, at 117, para. 455.
110 See Somalia v. Kenya, supra note 5, at 264, para. 161.
111 The 2009 agreement between Kenya and Tanzania formally defines the EEZ and the continental shelf boundary that was indicated by their 1976 agreement in an exchange of notes. The boundary line is delimited along the parallel of latitude eastwards to a point that intersects the outer limits of the continental shelf. See M. Pratt, ‘Kenya - Tanzania, Report Number 4-5(2)’, in C. G. Lathrop (ed.), International Maritime Boundaries, vol. VII (2016), 4781, at 4789.
112 See Somalia v. Kenya, supra note 5, at 265, para. 163.
113 See Black Sea, supra note 10, at 127, para. 201.
114 See, for example, Costa Rica v. Nicaragua, supra note 14, at 196, para. 156. For a discussion on the cut-off effect in the jurisprudence see Lando, supra note 60, at 168–73.
115 See Bangladesh v. India, supra note 3, at 137, para. 417.
116 Ibid., at 133, para. 404.
117 Ibid., at 134, para. 407.
118 Ibid., at 138, para. 421.
119 Ibid., at 137, para. 418.
120 Ibid., at 161, para. 473.
121 Ibid., at 135, para. 410.
122 Ibid., at 188, para. 5 (Dr. Rao, Concurring and Dissenting Opinion).
123 See Bangladesh/Myanmar, supra note 1, at 108–9, paras. 416–419.
124 See Tunisia/Libya, supra note 17, at 49–59, paras. 51–67; Libya/Malta, supra note 32, at 34–7, paras. 35–41.
125 See Bangladesh/Myanmar, supra note 1, at 118, para. 460.
126 See Bangladesh v. India, supra note 3, at 146, para. 439.
127 See R. Churchill, ‘Bangladesh/Myanmar Case: Continuity and Novelty in the Law of Maritime Boundary Delimitation’, (2012) 1 Cambridge Journal of International and Comparative Law 137, at 150; Fietta and Cleverly, supra note 61, at 618–19; Jensen, supra note 9, at 371–2; L. Bernard and C. Schofield, ‘Disputes Concerning the Delimitation of the Continental Shelf beyond 200 Nautical Miles’, in T. Heidar (ed.), New Knowledge and Changing Circumstances in the Law of the Sea (2020), 175.
128 See N. Marques Antunes and V. Becker-Weinberg, ‘Entitlement to Maritime Zones and Their Delimitation: In the Doldrums of Uncertainty and Unpredictability’, in Oude Elferink, Henriksen and Busch, supra note 9, 67–8.
129 See Tunisia/Libya, supra note 17, at 47, para. 44.
130 Ibid., at 57, para. 66; see Libya/Malta, supra note 32, at 34, para. 36.
131 See Bangladesh/Myanmar, supra note 1, at 105, para. 397; Bangladesh v. India, supra note 3, at 156, para. 458; Ghana/Côte d’Ivoire, supra note 4, at 137, para. 496; Somalia v. Kenya, supra note 5, at 276, para. 193.
132 See M. D. Evans, Relevant Circumstances and Maritime Delimitation (1989), at 103; Marques Antunes and Becker-Weinberg, supra note 128, at 67–8.
133 For arguments along this line see B. M. Magnússon, The Continental Shelf beyond 200 Nautical Miles: Delineation, Delimitation and Dispute Settlement (2015), at 172; see Kunoy, supra note 28, at 75.
134 See Liao, supra note 82, at 252–3.
135 See North Sea, supra note 23, at 32, para. 46; Tunisia/Libya, supra note 17, at 47, para. 44.
136 See Bangladesh/Myanmar, supra note 1, at 150, para. 11 (Judges ad hoc Mensah and Oxman, Joint Declaration).
137 See Tunisia/Libya, supra note 17, at 53, paras. 60–61.
138 In the Pulp Mills case, which concerns alleged violations of transboundary environmental pollution, the ICJ did not find it necessary ‘in order to adjudicate the present case to enter into a general discussion on the relative merits, reliability and authority of the documents and studies prepared by the experts and consultants of the Parties’. Pulp Mills on the River Uruguay (Argentina v. Uruguay), Judgment of 20 April 2010, [2010] ICJ Rep. 14, at 72, para. 168. Judges Al-Khasawneh and Simma noted that ‘the Court has an unfortunate history of persisting, when faced with sophisticated scientific and technical evidence in support of the legal claims made by States before it, in resolving these issues purely through the application of its traditional legal techniques’. Ibid., at 113, para. 12 (Judges Al-Khasawneh and Simma, Joint Dissenting Opinion).
139 See Mauritius/Maldives, supra note 6, para. 445.
140 Ibid., para. 448.
141 Ibid., para. 450.
142 Ibid., paras. 433, 453.
143 Nor did the special chamber find it necessary to arrange for an expert opinion to assist its examination of scientific or technical issues. Although the special chamber did ascertain the parties’ views on that, it eventually decided that ‘in the circumstances of this case, it would not be appropriate to arrange for such an opinion’. Ibid., para. 454. The special chamber did not specify what these circumstances were, yet the Maldives’ objection to arranging for an expert opinion could be one consideration. The Maldives contended that arranging for an expert opinion would be inconsistent with principles of procedural fairness and it would relieve Mauritius of its burden of proof. See ibid., paras. 423–425.
144 See Marques Antunes and Becker-Weinberg, supra note 128, at 86–7.
145 See Libya/Malta, supra note 32, at 30, para. 27.
146 See P. Weil, Perspectives du droit de la délimitation maritime (1988), 35–6; Gulf of Maine, supra note 27, at 277, para. 56.
147 For example, the 2004 Australia – New Zealand agreement is one delimitation agreement in which geomorphological or geological factors featured significantly. See N. Fyfe and G. French, ‘Australia - New Zealand, Report Number 5-26’, in D. A. Colson and R. W. Smith (eds.), International Maritime Boundaries, vol. V (2005), 3759 at 3763.
148 See Bangladesh/Myanmar, supra note 1, at 125–6, paras. 491, 495.
149 See Oude Elferink, supra note 31, at 240.
150 See Somalia v. Kenya, supra note 5, at 270, paras. 175–177.
151 See Ghana/Côte d’Ivoire, supra note 4, at 143, para. 528; Bangladesh v. India, supra note 3, at 167–8, paras. 490–491.
152 See Bangladesh v. India, supra note 3, paras. 299–302, 309; Ghana/Côte d’Ivoire, supra note 4, at 108, para. 385.
153 See Section 3.2, supra.
154 See Costa Rica v. Nicaragua, supra note 14, at 278 (Judge ad hoc Al-Khasawneh, Declaration); Y. Tanaka, ‘The Disproportionality Test in the Law of Maritime Delimitation’, in Oude Elferink, Henriksen and Busch, supra note 9, at 316.
155 See Tanaka, ibid., at 315. For an example in point see Maritime Dispute (Peru v. Chile), Judgment of 27 January 2014, [2014] ICJ Rep. 3, at 69, para. 193.
156 See Tanaka, supra note 154, at 314–15.
157 See Fietta and Cleverly, supra note 61, at 608–9; Tanaka, supra note 154, at 318.
158 See Anglo-French Arbitration, supra note 44, paras. 24–26 (Mr. P. Weil, Dissenting Opinion); M. D. Evans, ‘Maritime Boundary Delimitation: Where Do We Go From Here?’, in D. Freestone, R. Barnes and D. Ong (eds.), The Law of the Sea: Progress and Prospects (2006), 137, at 156.
159 See Qatar v. Bahrain, supra note 45, at 94, para. 176.
160 Ibid., at 93, para. 174.
161 See Bangladesh v. India, supra note 3, paras. 339, 343.
162 In the Mauritius/Maldives case, Mauritius proposed a line of equal division for the area of overlapping claims to the continental shelf beyond 200 nm in Northern Chagos Archipelago Region and contended that an extension of an equidistance line to the delimitation beyond 200 nm ‘rewards Maldives with almost all of the area beyond 200 M’, even though that equidistance line ‘equitably divides the parties’ overlapping entitlements within 200 M’. See Memorial of Mauritius, Volume I (25 May 2021), Mauritius/Maldives case, supra note 6, at 43–5. As the special chamber decided not to proceed to delimitation beyond 200 nm, it did not address the methodology for the continental shelf beyond 200 nm.
163 See R. E. Fife, ‘Norway-Russia Federation, Report Number 9-6(3)’, in C. G. Lathrop (ed.), International Maritime Boundaries, vol. VII (2016), 5167, at 5183.
164 See North Sea, supra note 23, at 37, para. 58; Anglo-French Arbitration, supra note 44, para. 112; Gulf of Maine, supra note 27, at 327, para. 195; Libya/Malta, supra note 32, at 47, para. 62; Nicaragua v. Honduras, supra note 33, at 746, para. 287.
165 Significant disparities in the coastal lengths may be a relevant circumstance in the delimitation of the continental shelf beyond 200 nm between two opposite states. See Fife, supra note 163, at 5185.