Evaluating the Effect of Islands on Maritime Delimitation

Year 2019, Volume: 2 Issue: 1, 111 - 194, 30.08.2019

Dolunay Özbek

Abstract

According to a study conducted in 2009, 39% (approximately 168) of the 427 potential maritime boundaries of the world have been delimited officially. Islands play a role in almost half of the remaining boundaries and 30 to 40 of these boundaries are correlated with sovereignty problems. When international jurisprudence consists of 12 ICJ judgments, 2 ITLOS judgments, 12 arbitratal awards (since 1909 Grisdabarna)including the South China Sea Arbitration, 2 Conciliation Commission decisions, and 1 federal arbitration. However, it becomes difficult to make generalizations about the issue in the title of this study when the political-geographical diversity of the islands is added on top of the variety of situations that require delimitation. Although it is not possible to make mention of absolute rules, it is possible to observe certain tendencies. After a brief assessment of the rules regarding the maritime delimitation below, the effect of island in delimitation will be evaluated from several aspects. First of these the consideration of islands in the event of an "agreement between parties" as it is always given priority by both the treaty law and the customary law. Later, it will be addressed whether islands' maritime entitlement properties are different from the properties of the mainlands. As delimitation can be performed in an area in which two states have competing claims, a difference in this respect would result in the islands having limited ex novo rights, thus having effects. Lastly, the effects of the islands will be tried to be classified with regard to their geographical positions and sizes, and the determining - though not possible to call rules but - tendencies will be tried to be distinguished.

Keywords

Maritime Delimitation, Islands, Delimitation Methods, Special Circumstances, Relevant Circumstances

Deniz Alanlarının Sınırlandırılmasında Adaların Etkisinin Değerlendirilmesi

Abstract

2009’daki bir incelemeye göre dünyadaki tahminen 427 potansiyel deniz sınırının yüzde 39’u (yaklaşık 168i) resmen çizilmiştir. Kalanların yaklaşık yarısında ise adaların da rolünün olduğu ve bunların da “30-40 kadarının” aidiyet sorunları ile ilgili olduğu görülmektedir. İçtihada bakıldığındaysa ise 12 UAD, 2 ITLOS, (1909 Grisdabarna’dan beridir) ve Güney Çin Denizi Tahkimini de sayarsak 12 tahkim, 2 Uzlaştırma Komisyonu, 1 federal tahkim kararı bulunmaktadır. Ne var ki sınırlandırmayı icap ettiren durumların çeşitliliğinin üzerine, bir de adaların politik-coğrafi çeşitliliği ve farklılığı eklendiğinde, başlıktaki konuya dair genellemeler yapmak güçleşir. Yine de kesin kurallardan bahsetmek mümkün olmasa da bazı genel eğilimleri gözlemlemek gayet mümkün dür. Aşağıda, deniz alanlarının sınırlandırılması ile ilgili kuralların çok kısa bir tespiti yapıldıktan sonra, sınırlandırmada adaların etkisi birkaç yönden değerlendirilmeye çalışılacaktır. Bunların ilki, gerek ahdi kuralların gerekse teamül hukukunun daima öncelik verdiği üzere “taraflar arası anlaşma” konusu olduğunda adaların ele alınışı, mahkemelerin ele almasında farklı olup olmadığıdır. Ardından, adaların deniz alanlarına hak kazandırıcı özelliklerinin anakaralardan farklı olup olmadığına değinilecektir. Sınırlandırma, her iki devletin de yarışan şekilde hak iddia ettiği bir alanda yapılabileceğine göre bu yönden bir farklılık, adaların daha baştan kısıtlı haklarının dolayısıyla etkilerinin olmasını sonuçlayacaktır. Son olarak, adaların etkileri, coğrafi konumları ve boyutlarına göre sınıflandırılmaya ve bu etkiyi belirleyen – kural demek mümkün olmasa da – eğilimler ayırdedilmeye çalışılacaktır.

Keywords

Deniz Alanları, Adalar, Sınırlandırma, Özel Durumlar, İlgili Durumlar

References

• Anderson, D. H.: “British Accession to the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea”, International and Comparative Law Quarterly, C. 46, 1997, s. 761-768.
• Bowett, D.: Legal Regime of Islands in International Law, 1979, Oceana.
• Bowett, D.: “Islands, Rocks, Reefs and Low-Tide Elevations in Maritime Boundary Delimitations”, Charney, J. - Lewis M. A. (ed.): International Maritime Boundaries, 1993, Martinus Nijhoff, s. 131-151.
• Brownlie, I.: Principles of Public International Law, 1990, 4. Baskı, Oxford.
• Charney, J. I. - Alexander, L. M. (ed.): “International Maritime Boundaries”, C. I ve II, 1993, Martinus Nijhoff, s. 1389-1399.
• Franckx, E.: “The 1998 Estonia-Sweden Maritime Boundary Agreement: Lessons to be Learned in the Area of Continuity and/or Succession of States”, Ocean Development & International Law, C. 31, 2000, s. 269–284.
• Jayawardene, H. W.: The Regime of Islands in International Law, Martinus Nijhoff, 1989.
• Legault, L. - Hankey, B.: “Method, Oppositeness and Adjacency, and Proportionality in Charney J. - Lewis M. A. (ed.): Maritime Boundary Delimitation, International Maritime Boundaries, Cilt I, 1993, Martinus Nijhoff, s. 203-241.
• Nordquist, M. H. - Nandan, S. N. - Rosenne, S. (ed.): United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea 1982 – A Commentary, 1985, Martinus Nijhoff.
• Özbek, D.: “Islands and Maritime Boundary Delimitation in the Semienclosed Sea of the Aegean”, Problems of Regional Seas, TÜDAV, 2001, s. 158-171.
• Prescott, V. - Schofield, C.: Maritime Political Boundaries of the World, 2005, 2. Baskı, Martinus Nijhoff.
• Prescott, V. - Triggs, G.: “Islands and Rocks and their Role in Maritime Delimitation”, Colson, D. A. - Smith R. W. (ed): International Maritime Boundaries, Cilt V, 2005, Brill, s. 3245-3280.
• Schofield, C.: “The Trouble with Islands: The Definition and the Role of Islands and Rocks”, Van Dyke, J. M. – Hong, S. Y. (ed): Maritime Boundary Disputes, Settlement Processes and the Law of the Sea, Brill, 2009, s. 19-37.
• Schofield, C. - Telesetsky, A. – Lee, S.: “A Tribunal Navigating Complex Waters: Implications of the Bay of Bengal Case”, Ocean Development and International Law, C. 44, 2013, s. 363–388.
• Symmons, C. R.: The Maritime Zones of Islands in International Law, 1979, Martinus Nijhoff.
• Tanaka, Y.: The International Law of the Sea, 2015, 2. Baskı, Cambridge.
• Van Dyke, J. M.: “Disputes Over Islands and Maritime Boundaries in East Asia”, Van Dyke, J. M. – Hong, S. Y. (ed): Maritime Boundary Disputes, Settlement Processes and the Law of the Sea, Brill, 2009, s. 39-75.
• 1969 North Sea Continental Shelf Case, Judgment, ICJ Reports, 1969, s. 3.
• 1978 Channel Continental Shelf Arbitration, International Law Reports, C. 54, 1979, s. 11.
• 1982 Case Concerning the Continental Shelf (Tunisia/Libyan Arab Jamahiriya), Judgment, ICJ Reports, 1982, s. 18.
• Jan Mayen, Report of the Conciliation Commission, International Boundary Cases: The Continental Shelf, Grotius Publications, 1992, C. I, s. 685.
• 1984 Case Concerning Delimitation of the Maritime Boundary in the Gulf of Maine Area (Canada/United States of America), ICJ Reports, 1984, s. 246.
• 1985 Case Concerning the Continental Shelf (Libyan Arab Jamahiriya/Malta), ICJ Reports, 1985, s. 13.
• 1989 Award of the Arbitration Tribunal for the Determination of the Maritime Boundary (Guinea-Bissau v. Senegal), International Law Reports, C. 83, 1990, s. 8.
• 1992 Case Concerning the Delimitation of Maritime Areas Between Canada and France, International Legal Materials, Cilt 31, 1992, s. 1145.
• 1993 Maritime Delimitation in the Area between Greenland and Jan Mayen, Judgment, ICJ Reports, 1993, s. 38.
• 1998 Eritrea-Yemen Arbitration, Phase II, 1999, http://www.pca-cpa.org/ERYE2TOC.htm.
• 2000 "Monte Confurco" (Seychelles v. France), Prompt Release, Judgment, ITLOS Reports 2000, s. 86.
• 2001 Maritime Delimitation and Territorial Questions Between Qatar and Bahrain, Merits, Judgment, ICJ Reports, 2001, s. 40.
• 2002 “Volga” (Russian Federation v. Australia), Prompt Release, Judgment, ITLOS Reports 2002, s. 10.
• 2006 Award of the Arbitral Tribunal Constituted Pursuant to Article 287, and in Accordance with Annex VII, of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea in the Matter of an Arbitration Between Barbados and the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago, Award of 11 April 2006, http://www.pca-cpa.org/upload/files/Final%20Award.pdf.
• 2007 Nicaragua/Honduras Davası: Case Concerning Territorial and Maritime Delimitation Between Nicaragua and Honduras in the Caribbean Sea (Nicaragua v. Honduras), 2007, http://www.icj-cij.org.
• 2009 Case Concerning Maritime Delimitation in the Black Sea (Romania v. Ukraine), Judgment, 2009, http://www.icj-cij.org.
• 2012 Dispute concerning Delimitation of the Maritime Boundary between Bangladesh and Myanmar in the Bay of Bengal, Judgment of 14 March 2012, http://www.itlos.org/fileadmin/itlos/documents/cases/case_no_16/1C16_Judgment_14_02_2012.pdf.
• Territorial and Maritime Dispute (Nicaragua v. Colombia), 2012, http://www.icj-cij.org/files/case-related/124/124-20121119-JUD-0100-EN.pdf.
• 2014 Maritime Dispute (Peru v. Chile), Judgment, 2014, http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/137/17930.pdf.
• 2015 PCA Case No. 2013-19 in the Matter of an Arbitration before an Arbitral Tribunal Constituted Under Annex VII to the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea between the Republic of the Philippines and the People’s Republic of China, Award on Jurisdiction and Admissibility, 29 October 2015, http://opiniojuris.org/wp-content/uploads/PH-CN-20151029-Award-on-Jurisdiction-and-Admissibility.pdf.