Türkiye ve Güney Kıbrıs Rum Yönetimi’nin Kıbrıs Adası’nın Batısındaki Deniz Alanları Üzerindeki Çakışan Taleplerinin Incelenmesi

Abstract

Güncel olarak bölgedeki gerginliği artıran Doğu Akdeniz’deki hidrokarbon meselesinin Türkiye Cumhuriyeti için iki boyutu bulunmaktadır. Bunlardan biri bizatihi Kıbrıs meselesi iken; diğeri ise 32° 16’ 18” boylamının batısında kalan deniz alanlarını ilgilendirmektedir. Bu çalışmada Türkiye ve Güney Kıbrıs Rum Yönetimi’nin, Anadolu’nun güney kıyısından başlayarak doğuda 32° 16’ 18” D boylamı ve güneyde Türkiye ile Mısır arasındaki ortay hat ile sınırlı deniz alanı üzerindeki birbiriyle çakışan talepleri üzerine yoğunlaşılmıştır. 1982 Sözleşmesi’nin ilgili maddelerine ilişkin Birleşmiş Milletler Üçüncü Deniz Hukuku Konferansı’nda gerçekleşen tartışmalara geri dönülerek uyuşmazlığın köküne inmeye çalışılırken; mahkeme ve hakem kararlarına, uluslararası yargı mercilerinin konuyla ilgili güncel yaklaşımına, devlet pratiğini inceleyen çalışmalara ve yazarların bunlara ilişkin yorumlarına değinilerek deniz alanlarına sahip olma ve deniz alanlarının sınırlandırılması konuları ele alınmıştır.

Keywords

• Kıbrıs,Sahip olma,Sınırlandırma,Deniz,BMDHS

Examination of the Overlapping Claims of Turkey and the Greek Cypriot Administration of Southern Cyprus on the Maritime Areas to the West of the Island of Cyprus

Abstract

The recent rise in tensions in the region regarding the hydrocarbons issue in the Eastern Mediterranean has two particular implications for the Republic of Turkey. One is related to the ‘Cyprus issue’ itself, and the other concerns the maritime areas to the west of the longitude 32° 16’ 18”. In the present paper, the focus is placed on the conflicting claims of Turkey and the Greek Cypriot Administration of Southern Cyprus over the maritime area off the southern Anatolian coast limited in the east by 32° 16’ 18” E longitude and in the south by the median line between the coasts of Turkey and Egypt. While getting to the root of the disagreement by referring back to the discussions at the Third UN Conference on the Law of the Sea on the relevant articles of the 1982 Convention, this paper addresses the issues of entitlement and delimitation by referring to judicial and arbitral decisions, the contemporary approach of the international courts, the studies that examine the state practice and the comments made by scholars thereon.

Keywords

• Cyprus,Entitlement,Delimitation,Maritime,UNCLOS

Supporting Institution

The author received no grant support for this work.

References

1. A Law To Provide for the Proclamation of the Exclusive Economic Zone by the Republic of Cyprus (Law No. 64(Ι)/2004) (2nd April 2004) (The Division for Ocean Affairs and the Law of the Sea of the Office of Legal Affairs of the United Nations) accessed 14 August 2019.
2. Abasheikh O, ‘The Validity of the Persistent Offender Rule in International Law’ (2004) 9 Coventry Law Journal 40.
3. Abass A, Complete International Law: Text, Cases, and Materials (2nd edn, Oxford University Press 2014), 48; See generally, Stein (n 68) 457 Act No. 2674 of 20 May 1982, on the Territorial Sea of the Republic of Turkey (The Division for Ocean Affairs and the Law of the Sea of the Office of Legal Affairs of the United Nations) accessed 14 August 2019.
4. Antunes NM and Becker-Weinberg V, ‘Entitlement to Maritime Zones and Their Delimitation’ in Oude Elferink AG, Henriksen T and Busch SV (eds), Maritime Boundary Delimitation: The Case Law: Is It Consistent and Predictable? (Cambridge University Press 2018) 62.
5. Başeren SH, Dispute Over Eastern Mediterranean Maritime Jurisdiction Areas (2010, Publications of Turkish Marine Research Foundation).
6. Beckman R and Schofield C, ‘Moving Beyond Disputes Over Island Sovereignty: ICJ Decision Sets Stage for Maritime Boundary Delimitation in the Singapore Strait’ (2009) 40(1) Ocean Development & International Law 1, 9.
7. Blakeslee MR, ‘The distant island problem: the arbitration on the delimitation of the maritime zones around the French collectivité territoriale of Saint Pierre-and-Miquelon’ 21(359)
8. Georgia Journal of International & Comparative Law 359, Bölükbaşı D, Turkey and Greece: The Aegean Disputes: a Unique Case in International Law (Cavendish, 2004).

9. Bradley CA & Gulati M, ‘Withdrawing from International Custom’ (2010) 120 Yale Law Journal 202.
10. British Institute of International and Comparative Law, Report on the Obligations of States under Articles 74(3) and 83(3) of UNCLOS in respect of Undelimited Maritime Areas (BIICL 2016).
11. Brownlie I, Principles of Public International Law (2003, 4th edn, Oxford University Press). Charney JI and Alexander LM (eds), International Maritime Boundaries Volume I (Martinus Nijhoff 1993).
12. Charney JI, ‘Progress in International Maritime Boundary Delimitation Law’ (1994) 88 The American Journal of International Law 227.
13. Charney JI, ‘The Persistent Objector Rule and the Development of Customary International Law’ (1985) 56 British Yearbook of International Law.
14. Cottier T, Equitable Principles of Maritime Boundary Delimitation: The Quest for Distributive Justice in International Law (Cambridge University Press 2015) 413.
15. Continental Shelf Law, Law No. 8 of 5 April 1974 (The Division for Ocean Affairs and the Law of the Sea of the Office of Legal Affairs of the United Nations) .
16. Crawford J, ‘The International Court of Justice and the Law of State Responsibility’, in Tams C and Sloan J (eds), The Development of Law by the International Court of Justice (Oxford University Press 2013) 71. D’Amato A, The Concept of Custom in International Law (1973 NCROL). Danilenko GM, Law-Making in the International Community (Brill Nijhoff 1993). Decree by the Council of Ministers No. 8/4742 (The Division for Ocean Affairs and the Law of the Sea of the Office of Legal Affairs of the United Nations) accessed 14 August 2019. Decree by the Council of Ministers, No. 86/11264, dated 17 December 1986 (The Division for Ocean Affairs and the Law of the Sea of the Office of Legal Affairs of the United Nations) accessed 14 August 2019.
17. Demir İ, ‘Montrö Boğazlar Sözleşmesi’nin Feshi’ (2018) 136 Union of Turkish Bar Associations Review 327, 345; In the context of territorial waters, Melih Başdemir, ‘Türkiye’nin Avrupa Birliği Müzakere Sürecinde Yunanistan ile Olan Karasuları Sorunu’ (2007) 6 Güvenlik Stratejileri Dergisi 93.
18. Delmoitie P, The Marine Delimitation An evolution of the concept. The effect of islands and lowtide elevations on the marine delimitation (Masterproef van de opleiding ‘Master in de rechten’ Faculteit Rechtsgeleerdheid Universiteit Gent Academiejaar 2010-2011).
19. Dépôt d’une carte marine et d’une liste de coordonnées géographiques par Chypre (The Division for Ocean Affairs and the Law of the Sea of the Office of Legal Affairs of the United Nations) accessed 14 August 2019.
20. Doc A/73/10 International Law Commission, Report of the International Law Commission (Seventieth session 30 April–1 June and 2 July–10 August 2018).
21. Doc. A/CN.4/682 International Law Commission, Third Report on Identification of Customary International Law (prepared by Special Rapporteur Michael Wood) (Geneva, Sixty-seventh session 27 March 2015).
22. Doc. A/CONF.62/C.2/L.23, Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea, Turkey: draft article on delimitation between States; various aspects involved (26 July August 1974), Official Records of the Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea, vol III, 201.
23. Doc A/CONF.62/C.2/L.50 Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea, Greece: draft articles on the regime of islands and other related matters (9 August 1974), Official Records of the Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea, vol III.
24. Doc A/CONF.62/C.2/L.55 Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea, Turkey: draft articles on the regime of islands (13 August 1974), Official Records of the Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea, vol III.
25. Doc A/CONF.62/SR.160 Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea 160th Plenary meeting (30 March 1982), Official Records of the Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea, vol XVI, 27.
26. Doc A/CONF.62/SR.169 Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea 169th Plenary meeting (15 April 1982), Official Records of the Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea, vol XVII.
27. Doc A/CONF.62/SR.189 Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea 189th Plenary meeting (8 December 1982), Official Records of the Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea, vol XVII.
28. Doc A/CONF.62/WP.10 Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea Informal Composite Negotiating Text, Sixth Session Official Records of the Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea, vol XVIII.
29. Doc C.2/Informal Meeting/21 of 28 April 1978.
30. Doc NG7/2/Rev.2 (28 March 1980) in Platzöder R (ed) Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea: Documents, Vol. IX (Oceana Publications, Inc. 1986) 394
31. Doc NG7/10/Rev.1 (25 March 1980) in Platzöder R (ed) Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea: Documents, Vol. IX (Oceana Publications, Inc. 1986) 403.
32. Doğru S, ‘Doğu Akdenı̇z’de Hı̇drokarbon Kaynakları Ve Uluslararası Hukuka Göre Bölgedekı̇ Kıta Sahanlığı Ve Münhasır Ekonomı̇k Bölge Alanlarının Sınırlandırılması’ (2015) 119 Union of Turkish Bar Associations Review 503, 544ff.
33. Dumberry P, ‘Incoherent and Ineffective: The Concept of Persistent Objector Revisited’ (2010) 59 International and Comparative Law Quarterly 779.
34. Dumberry P, ‘The Last Citadel! Can a State Claim the Status of Persistent Objector to Prevent the Application of a Rule of Customary International Law in Investor–State Arbitration?’ (2010) 23 Leiden Journal of International Law 379.
35. Dundua N, Delimitation of Maritime Boundaries Between Adjacent States, (United Nations – The Nippon Foundation of Japan Fellowship Programme) (United Nations 2006-2007).
36. Erciyes Ç ‘Maritime Issues Maritime Boundary Delimitation, & Turkey’s Off-Shore Activities in the Eastern Mediterranean’ (Turkish Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 10 May 2019) accessed 14 August 2019.
37. Erciyes Ç ‘Turkey’s Off-Shore Activities In The Eastern Mediterranean & Maritime Boundary Delimitation In International Law’ (Turkish Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 27 May 2019) accessed 14 August 2019.
38. Eveno VB, ‘L’interprétation de l’article 121 de la Convention des Nations Unies sur le droit de la mer par la Cour internationale de Justice’ in Angela Del Vecchio, Roberto Virzo (eds), Interpretations of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea by International Courts and Tribunals. (2019 Springer) 59.
39. Fitzmaurice G, ‘The Law and Procedure of the International Court of Justice, 1951–54: General Principles and Sources of Law’ (1953) 30 British Yearbook of International Law 1.
40. Geographical coordinates showing baselines for measuring the breadth of the territorial sea, Legislation - United Nations Division for Ocean Affairs and the Law of the Sea Office of Legal Affairs accessed 14 August 2019.
41. Green JA, Persistent Objector Rule in International Law (Oxford University Press 2018).
42. Gündüzler U, ‘United Nations Convention on Law of Sea as a Mixed Treaty of EU: A Headache for Turkey?’ (2013) 12(2) Ankara Avrupa Çalışmaları Dergisi 61.
43. Güneş ŞA, ‘Birleşmiş Milletler Deniz Hukuku Sözleşmesi ve Deniz Çevresinin Korunması’ (2007) 56(1) Ankara Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi 1.
44. Gürdeniz C, ‘Jeopolitik, Savunma ve Güvenlik Perspektifinde Türk Deniz Gücü ve 21nci Yüzyıl’ (21. Yüzyıl İçin Planlama) accessed 14 August 2019.
45. Gürel A, Mullen F and Tzimitras H, The Cyprus Hydrocarbons Issue: Context, Positions and Future Scenarios, PCC Report 1/2013, (Peace Research Institute Oslo (PRIO) Cyprus Center, 2013) 19.
46. Henkin L, ‘International Law: Politics, Values and Function: General Course on Public International Law’ (1989) 216 Recueil des cours.
47. Higgins Rosalyn, ‘President, International Court of Justice, Keynote Address at the Sixtieth Anniversary of the International Law Commission (May 19, 2008)’ Statements by the President, International Court of Justice. Information note by Turkey, concerning its objection to the Agreement between the Republic of Cyprus and the Arab Republic of Egypt on the Delimitation of the Exclusive Economic Zone, 17 February 2003 in United Nations Division for Ocean Affairs and the Law of the Sea Office of Legal Affairs, Law of the Sea Bulletin 54 (New York, United Nations, 2004).
48. International Court of Justice, Déclarations du président, Discours de S. Exc. M. Peter Tomka, Président De La Cour Internatıonale De Justice, Devant La Sixième Commission de L’assemblée Générale le 2 Novembre 2012.
49. Ioannidis N ‘The Continental Shelf Delimitation Agreement Between Turkey and “TRNC”’ (Blog of the European Journal of International Law [EJIL], 26 May 2014) accessed 14 August 2019.
50. Ioannou KM, The Greek Territorial Sea, in Kariotis TC (ed) Greece and the Law of the Sea (Kluwer Law International 1997) 115.
51. International Law Association Committee on Formation of Customary (General)
52. International Law, Statement of Principles Applicable to the Formation of General Customary International Law (International Law Association, London Conference 2000)
53. İnan Y and Acer Y, ‘The Aegean disputes’ in Karaosmanoğlu AL and Taşhan S (eds), The Europeanization of Turkey’s security policy: Prospects and pitfalls (Turkish Foreign Policy Institute 2004) 125.
54. İnan Y and Gözen Ercan P, ‘Maritime Relations of Peninsular Turkey: Surrounded by Hostile or Peaceful Water?’ in Gözen Ercan P (ed) International Relations, Legality and Global Reach (Palgrave Macmillan 2017) 281.
55. Jacovides A, ‘Current Issues of the Law of the Sea and Their Relevance to Cyprus’ (The European Rim Policy and Investment Council, 23 June 2009) accessed 14 August 2019.
56. Jacovides A, ‘Delimitation Practice in the Eastern Mediterranean’ (The European Rim Policy and Investment Council, 25 July 2012) accessed 14 August 2019.
57. Jacovides A, International Law and Diplomacy: Selected Writings by Ambassador Andrew Jacovides (Martinus Nijhoff 2011).
58. Jayewardene HW, The Regime of Islands in International Law, (Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 1989).
59. Jennings R and Watts A (eds), Oppenheim’s International Law, I: Peace (9th edn, Oxford University Press 1992).
60. Kastrisios C, Methods of Maritime Outer Limits Delimitation (Hellenic Naval Academy 2014) accessed 14 August 2019.
61. Korkut E, ‘Turkey and the International Law of the Sea’ (SJD Dissertations 5, The Pennsylvania State University 2017).
62. Kütükçü MA and Kaya İS, ‘Uluslararası Deniz Hukuku Kapsamında Doğu Akdeniz’deki Petrol ve Doğalgaz Kaynakları ile Türkiye’nin Hukuki Durumu’ (2016) 2(1) Journal of Life Sciences 81, 92ff.
63. Kwiatkowska B and Soons AHA, ‘Entitlement to Maritime Areas of Rocks Which Cannot Sustain Human Habitation or Economic Life of Their Own’ (1990) 21 Netherlands Yearbook of International Law 139.
64. Kwiatkowska B, ‘Equitable maritime delimitation – A legal perspective’ (1988) 3(4) International Journal of Estuarine And Coastal Law 287.
65. Lau Holning, ‘Rethinking the Persistent Objector Doctrine in International Human Rights Law’ (2005–2006) 6 Chicago Journal of International Law 495.
66. Lee KB, The Demise of Equitable Principles and the Rise of Relevant Circumstances in Maritime Boundary Delimitation (Submitted for the Degree of Ph.D. School of Law The University of Edinburgh 2012) accessed 14 August 2019.
67. Lee LT ‘The Law of the Sea Convention and Third States’ (1983) 77 The American Journal of International Law 541.
68. Legault L and Hankey B, ‘Method, Oppositeness and Adjacency, and Proportionality in Maritime Boundary Delimitations’ in Charney JI and Alexander LM (eds), International Maritime Boundaries (Martinus Nijhoff 1993).
69. Lepard BD, Customary International Law: A New Theory with Practical Applications (Cambridge University Press 2010).
70. Leventis Y, ‘Projecting for Control of Warm Waters. Turkey’s Posturing for Hydrocarbon Hegemony in the Eastern Mediterranean’ in Faustmann H, Gürel A and Reichberg GM (eds), The Hydrocarbon Wealth of Cyprus: Equitable Distribution and Regional Politics (Peace Research Institute Oslo (PRIO) Cyprus Center/Friedrich Ebert Foundation 2012) 7.
71. Lobo de Souza IM, “The Role of State Consent in the Customary Process” (1995) 44 International and Comparative Law Quarterly 521.
72. McClane JB, ‘How Late in the Emergence of a Norm of Customary International Law May a Persistent Objector Object?’ (1989) 13 ILSA Journal of International Law 1.
73. McWhinney Edward, Judge Shigeru Oda and the Progressive Development of International Law: Opinions (Declarations, Separate Opinions, Dissents) on the International Court of Justice, 1976–1992 (Martinus Nijhoff 1993).
74. Milano E and Papanicolopulu İ, ‘State responsibility in disputed areas on land and at sea’ 71(3) Zeitschrift für Ausländisches Öffentliches Recht und Völkerrecht’ [2011] 587.
75. Ndiaye TM, ‘The judge, maritime delimitation and the grey areas’ (2015) 55(4) Indian Journal of International Law 493.
76. Official Records of the Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea, vol I. Oude Elferink AG, The law of maritime boundary delimitation: a case study of the Russian Federation (Martinus Nijhoff Publishers 1994) 288ff.
77. Park Leo, ‘The International Court and Rule-Making: Finding Effectiveness’ [2018] 39(4) University of Pennsylvania Journal of International Law 1065.
78. Press Release Regarding the EU General Affairs Council Conclusions on Turkey, (Turkish Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 18 June 2019) accessed 14 August 2019.
79. Roucounas E, ‘Greece and the Law of the Sea’, in Tullio Treves, Laura Pineschi (eds), The Law of the Sea (Kluwer, 1997) 225. Rousseau C, Droit international public, I (Sirey 1970).
80. Schofield CH, The Trouble with Islands (A Thesis Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of Requirements for the Degree of Master of Laws in The Faculty of Graduate Studies (Law) The University of British Columbia 2009). Shalowitz AL, Shore and Sea Boundaries, Vol. 1, (Washington: U.S. Dept. of Commerce, Publication 10-1, U.S. Govt. Printing Office 1962).
81. Stein T, ‘The Approach of the Different Drummer: the Principle of the Persistent Objector in International Law’, (1985) 26 Harvard International Law Journal 457.
82. Tanaka Y, Predictability and Flexibility in the Law of Maritime Delimitation (Hart Publishing 2006).
83. Territorial Waters Law, 1964 (The Division for Ocean Affairs and the Law of the Sea of the Office of Legal Affairs of the United Nations) accessed 14 August 2019.
84. Tesón FR, ‘International Obligation and the Theory of Hypothetical Consent’, (1990) 15 Yale Journal of International Law 84.
85. The Exclusive Economic Zone and the Continental Shelf Laws 2004 and 2014 (The Division for Ocean Affairs and the Law of the Sea of the Office of Legal Affairs of the United Nations) accessed 14 August 2019.
86. Turkish Ministry of Foreign Affairs, ‘Başlıca Ege Denizi Sorunları’ accessed 14 August 2019.
87. Turkish Ministry of Foreign Affairs, ‘Comply With The Proposal Or We Will Continue (Article by H.E. Mr. Mevlüt Çavuşoğlu, Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Turkey, published in “Kıbrıs Postası” (TRNC) on 14 July 2019)’ accessed 14 August 2019.
88. Turkish Ministry of Foreign Affairs, ‘The Outstanding Aegean Issues’ accessed 14 August 2019.
89. Tzionis T ‘Recent developments in the continental shelf/EEZ of the Republic of Cyprus’ (Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Republic of Cyprus, 31 May 2019) accessed 14 August 2019.
90. Tzionis T ‘Recent developments in the continental shelf/EEZ of the Republic of Cyprus’ (Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Republic of Cyprus, 7 June 2019) accessed 14 August 2019.
91. United Nations Division for Ocean Affairs and the Law of the Sea Office of Legal Affairs, Law of the Sea Bulletin 54 (New York, United Nations, 2004). United Nations Division for Ocean Affairs and the Law of the Sea Office of Legal Affairs, Law of the Sea Bulletin 57 (New York, United Nations, 2004) United Nations Division for Ocean Affairs and the Law of the Sea, Régime of Islands: Legislative History of Part VIII (Article 121) of the United Nations convention on the Law of the Sea (1988, United Nations).
92. Van Dyke JM, ‘An Analysis of the Aegean Disputes under International Law’ (2005) 36(1) Ocean Development & International Law 63. Verzijl JHW, International Law in Historical Perspective, I (Albertus Willem Sijthoff 1968). Villiger ME, Customary International Law & Treaties (2nd edn, Brill Nijhoff 1997). Weil P, ‘Geographic Considerations in Maritime Delimitation’ in Charney JI and others (eds), International Maritime Boundaries Volume V (Martinus Nijhoff 2005) 115, 126.
93. Weil P, ‘Le droit international en quête de son identité: Cours général de droit international public’ (1992) 237
94. Recueil des cours. Weil P, The law of maritime delimitation-reflections (Grotius Publications Ltd. 1989)
95. Weil P, ‘Towards Relative Normativity in International Law?’ (1983) 77 American Journal of International Law 413.
96. Wolfke K, Custom in Present International Law (2nd edn, Martinus Nijhoff 1993).
97. Yaycı C, ‘Doğu Akdeniz’de Deniz Yetki Alanlarının Paylaşılması Sorunu ve Türkiye’ (Bilgesam) 13 accessed 14 August 2019.
98. Yiallourides C, ‘Oil and Gas Development in Disputed Waters under UNCLOS’ (2016) 5(1) UCL Journal of Law and Jurisprudence 59.
99. Cases
100. Aegean Sea Continental Shelf (Greece v. Turkey), [1978] ICJ Rep 3.
101. Arbitration between Barbados and the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago, relating to the delimitation of the exclusive economic zone and the continental shelf between them, Decision of 11 April 2006, 27 Reports of International Arbitral Awards 147.
102. Award in the arbitration regarding the delimitation of the maritime boundary between Guyana and Suriname, Award of 17 September 2007, 30 Reports of International Arbitral Awards 1.
103. Award of the Arbitral Tribunal in the second stage of the proceedings between Eritrea and Yemen (Maritime Delimitation) Decision of 17 December 1999, 22 Reports of International Arbitral Awards 335.
104. Case concerning the delimitation of maritime areas between Canada and France (Canada v. France) Decision of 10 June 1992, 21 Reports of International Arbitral Awards 365. Continental Shelf (Libyan Arab Jamahiriya/Malta), Judgment [1985] ICJ Rep 13.
105. Continental Shelf (Tunisia/Libyan Arab Jamahiriya), Judgment, [1982] ICJ Rep 18. Colombian-Peruvian asylum case (Colombia v. Peru) Judgment of November 20th [1950] ICJ Rep 266.
106. Delimitation of the maritime boundary in the Bay of Bengal (Bangladesh/Myanmar), Judgment, [2012] ITLOS Rep 4.
107. Delimitation of the Continental Shelf between the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and the French Republic (United Kingdom v. France) 30 June 1977 - 14 March 1978, 18 Reports of International Arbitral Awards 3.
108. Fischbach & Friedricy case, 10 RIAA 388, (1903, Germany-Venezuela Mixed Claims Commission). Fisheries case (United Kingdom v. Norway) Judgment of December 18th [1951] ICJ Rep 116.
109. Frontier Dispute (Burkina Faso v. Republic of Mali), Judgment [1986] ICJ Rep. 1986 554.
110. ICJ Pleadings, Aegean Sea Continental Shelf (Greece v. Turkey). ICJ Pleadings, Continental Shelf (Libyan Arab Jamahiriya Malta), vol I. ICJ Pleadings, Fisheries case (United Kingdom v. Norway). Maritime Delimitation and Territorial Questions between Qatar and Bahrain (Qatar v. Bahrain) [2001] Merits, Judgment, ICJ Rep 40, Maritime Delimitation in the Area between Greenland and Jan Mayen (Denmark v. Norway) [1993] ICJ Rep 38.
111. Maritime Delimitation in the Black Sea (Romania v. Ukraine), Judgment [2009] ICJ 61 Reports. Michael Domingues v. United States (Case 12.285), Report No. 62/02, Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, Doc. 5 rev. 1 at 913 (2002).
112. North Sea Continental Shelf (Federal Republic of Germany/Denmark), [1969] ICJ Rep 3.
113. Roach & Pinkerton v. United States (Case 9647) Inter-American Commission on Human Rights 147, OEA/ser.LJV/II.71, doc. 9 rev. 1 (1987).
114. Sabeh El Leil v. France [GC], No. 34869/05, European Court of Human Rights, 29 June 2011.
115. Siderman de Blake v. Republic of Argentina, United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, 965 F.2d 699; 1992 U.S. App..
116. Territorial and Maritime Dispute (Nicaragua v. Colombia) [2012] Merits, Judgment, ICJ Rep 624,
117. Land and Maritime Boundary between Cameroon and Nigeria (Cameroon v. Nigeria: Equatorial Guinea intervening), Judgment, [2002] ICJ Rep 303.
118. Land, Island and Maritime Frontier Dispute (El Salvador/Honduras: Nicaragua Intervening), Judgment of 11 September 1992, [1992] ICJ Rep 351.
119. Lotus Case (France v Turkey) PCIJ Rep Series A No 10.