Analysis of International Legal Frameworks on Maritime Boundary Delimitation: Judicial Case Examples

Yıl 2024, , 1777 - 1806, 18.09.2024

Asm Mahmudul Hasan , Md Syful Islam , Md. Minhajul Abedin Chowdhury

https://doi.org/10.15337/suhfd.1428205

Öz

This study explores the historical evolution and complexities of maritime boundary delineation, focusing on relevant international legal frameworks. It highlights modern developments in maritime boundary law, detailing key methods like the Median and Thalweg Lines. The research examines pivotal legal documents, such as the 1958 Geneva Conventions and the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). Additionally, it discusses reliable approaches to boundary delimitation, including jurisprudence constante, the equidistance method, and the role of relevant circumstances. The study emphasizes predictability, legal stability, and equitable solutions, stressing the importance of geographical factors. Judicial decisions from international courts, including the International Court of Justice (ICJ) and the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS), are analyzed. Landmark cases like the North Sea Continental Shelf and Bangladesh vs. Myanmar are explored, revealing the challenges of applying delimitation principles. The study concludes with recommendations to improve maritime boundary delimitation.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Maritime Boundary, Equitable Principles, UNCLOS, ITLOS, Judicial Case Decisions

AN ANALYSIS OF INTERNATIONAL LEGAL FRAMEWORKS ON MARITIME BOUNDARY DELIMITATION: JUDICIAL CASE EXAMPLES

Öz

Bu çalışma, deniz sınırının tarihsel evrimini ve hukuki karmaşıklıklarını inceleyerek, geleneksel uygulamalardan çağdaş uluslararası hukuki çerçevelere geçişini incelemiştir. Özellikle, ulusal çıkarlar, adalet ve işbirliği üzerindeki temel hukuki doktrinlerin etkisini analiz etmiş ve deniz hukukunda adil ilkelerden normativiteye geçişini vurgulamıştır. Çalışmanın merkezinde, Bangladeş'in Hindistan ve Myanmar ile yaşadığı önemli deniz sınırı anlaşmazlıkları yer almış ve bu uluslararası çatışmaları çözme amacıyla uygulanan sınırlama prensiplerini ve karmaşık jeopolitik ve hukuki stratejileri ortaya koymuştur. Teorik prensiplerin pratik uygulamasını aydınlatmak amacıyla Kuzey Denizi Kıta Sahanlığı davası da dahil olmak üzere önemli uluslararası davaları titizlikle incelemiştir. Araştırma, deniz sınırlarının öngörülebilirliğini eleştirel bir şekilde değerlendirmiş, hukuki kararlılık ilkesinin etkisini vurgulamış ve coğrafi ve coğrafi olmayan faktörlerin etkisini ele almıştır. Deniz sınırları anlaşmazlıkları ve politika yapımı için geçmiş deniz sınırları anlaşmazlıkları ve politika yapımı için uygulanabilir önerilerle sonuçlanarak, uluslararası hukuk altında sürdürülebilir ve adil çözümlerin gerekliliğini vurgulamıştır. Bangladeş'in geçmiş deniz sınırları sorunlarını ve bunların küresel etkilerini ayrıntılı bir şekilde inceleyerek, bu araştırma akademik tartışmaya önemli bir katkı sağlamış ve deniz sınırlarının belirlenmesine dahil olan politika yapıcıları ve diplomatlar için pratik rehberlik sunmuştur. İkincil araştırma yaklaşımı, tarihî analiz, hukuki inceleme ve jeopolitik değerlendirmeyi içermiş ve uluslararası hukuki belgeler, antlaşmalar, mahkeme kararları, akademik literatür ve uzman yorumlarının kapsamlı bir incelemesine dayanmıştır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Deniz Sınırı, Eşitlik İlkesi, BM Deniz Hukuku Sözleşmesi, Eşdizim Yöntemi, Karasuları, Bangladeş.

Kaynakça

• ANDERSON, D.H., “Delimitation of the Maritime Boundary in the Bay of Bengal (Bangladesh/Myanmar).” American Journal of International Law, 2012. 106(4): p. 824.
• ANTUNES, N.S.M., “The 1999 Eritrea–Yemen Maritime Delimitation Award and The Development of International Law.” International and Comparative Law Quarterly, 2001. 50(2): p. 304.
• BOURNE, G.B. and D.M. McRae, “Maritime Jurisdiction in the Dixon Entrance: The Alaska Boundary Re-Examined.” Canadian Yearbook of international Law/Annuaire canadien de droit international, 1977. 14: p. 179.
• BOYLE, A.E., “The Law of Treaties and the Anglo-French Continental Shelf Arbitration.” International and Comparative Law Quarterly, 1980. 29(2-3): p. 502.
• BRAVENDER‐COYLE, P., “The emerging legal principles and equitable criteria governing the delimitation of maritime boundaries between states.” Ocean Development & International Law, 1988. 19(3): p. 219.
• BROWN, E.D., “The Tunisia-Libya continental shelf case: A missed opportunity.” Marine Policy, 1983. 7(3): p. 142.
• CHURCHILL, R., “Bangladesh/Myanmar Case: Continuity and Novelty in the Law of Maritime Boundary Delimitation.” Cambridge Journal of International and Comparative Law, 2012. 1: p. 137.
• CIARLI, S. and K. McLachlan, “A Bibliographic Review: Studies of Libya's International Borders.” Libyan Studies, 1996. 27: p. 90.
• COTTIER, T., “Equitable principles of maritime boundary delimitation.” 2015: Cambridge University Press. p. 518.
• DYKE, J.M.V., “The Role of Islands in Delimiting Maritime Zones: The Case of the Aegean Sea.” Ocean Yearbook Online, 1989. 8(1): p. 54.
• EVANS, M.D., “Less Than an Ocean Apart: The St Pierre and Miquelon and Jan Mayen Islands and the Delimitation of Maritime Zones.” International and Comparative Law Quarterly, 1994. 43(3): p. 690.
• FARHANA, F., Consistency and Predictability in International Tribunals Decision on Maritime Delimitation Cases From 2009 to 2019. Indonesian Journal of International Law., 2020. 18: p. 23.
• FISHER, M.H., An environmental history of India: from earliest times to the twenty-first century. Vol. 18. 2018: Cambridge University Press. 280.
• GARCÍA CH, M.C. and J. Gupta, “Environmental and sociocultural claims within maritime boundary disputes.” Marine Policy, 2022. 139: p. 2.
• HASAN, M.M., et al., “Protracted maritime boundary disputes and maritime laws.” Journal of International Maritime Safety, Environmental Affairs, and Shipping, 2019. 2(2): p. 90.
• HIGGINS, R., “Problems and process: international law and how we use it.” Oxford University Press, 1995. 28(3): p. 129.
• ISLAM MS, “Maritime Security in a Technological Era: Addressing Challenges in Balancing Technology and Ethics.” Mersin University Journal of Maritime Faculty, 2024, 6(1): p. 5.
• ISLAM MS, “Maritime Diplomacy and Regional Cooperation Mechanisms: Insights from the Black Sea and Bay of Bengal.” Millennial Asia, 2024, (0): p. 15
• JAFARI, a., A. Shaheydar, and s. rasoulpour Nalkiyashary, “Maritime Delimitation zones in the Light of Judicial and Arbitratory Awards (Case Study of Bengal Bay).” The Quarterly Journal of Judicial Law Views, 2023. 25(90): p. 59.
• KAŁDUŃSKI, M. and T. Wasilewski, “The International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea on Maritime Delimitation: The Bangladesh v. Myanmar Case.” Ocean Development & International Law, 2014. 45(2): p. 130.
• KAŁDUŃSKI, M., A Commentary on Maritime Boundary Arbitration between Bangladesh and India Concerning the Bay of Bengal. Leiden Journal of International Law, 2015. 28(4): p. 728.
• KIM, S.K., “China and Japan Maritime Disputes in the East China Sea: A Note on Recent Developments.” Ocean Development and International Law - OCEAN DEV INT LAW, 2012. 43: p. 297.
• KOLB, R., Selected Problems in the Theory of Customary International Law. Netherlands International Law Review, 2003. 50(2): p. 125.
• KWIATKOWSKA, B., “Barbados/Trinidad and Tobago. Award on Jurisdiction and Merits.” The American Journal of International Law, 2007. 101(1): p. 152.
• KWIATKOWSKA, B., “The 2006 Barbados/Trinidad and Tobago Award: A Landmark in Compulsory Jurisdiction and Equitable Maritime Boundary Delimitation.” The International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law, 2007. 22(1): p. 12.
• MARSTON, G., “North Sea Continental Shelf Cases.” Federal Law Review, 1969. 3(2): p. 285.
• MIRON, A., A Practitioner’s Guide to Maritime Boundary Delimitation Maritime Boundary Delimitation: The Case Law. Is It Consistent and Predictable? European Journal of International Law, 2020. 31(1): p. 374.
• MISHRA, R., “The ‘Sir Creek’ Dispute: Contours, Implications and the Way Ahead. Strategic Analysis, 2015. 39(2): p. 190.
• NALDI, G.J., Case Concerning the Territorial Dispute (Libyan Arab Jamahiriya/Chad). International and Comparative Law Quarterly, 1995. 44(3): p. 685.
• NDIAYE, T.M., “The judge, maritime delimitation and the grey areas.” Indian Journal of International Law, 2015. 55(4): p. 495.
• NELSON, L.D.M., “The North Sea Continental Shelf Cases and Law-Making Conventions.” The Modern Law Review, 1972. 35(1): p. 53.
• NORDQUIST, M.H., et al., “Legal Order in the World's Oceans: UN Convention on the Law of the Sea. Chapter 8 itlos at Twenty: Reflections on Its Contribution to Dispute Settlement and the Rule of Law at Sea.” 2017: Brill | Nijhoff. 190.
• ØSTRENG, W., et al., “Ocean Law Debates: The 50-Year Legacy and Emerging Issues for the Years Ahead, in Chapter 7 Small States in the Decision-Making Process of UNCLO III.” 2018, Brill | Nijhoff. p. 216.
• OUDE ELFERINK, A.G. and A.G.O. Elferink, “The Law of Maritime Boundary Delimitation: A Case Study of the Russian Federation.” Chapter II The Case Law concerning Maritime Delimitation. 2021: Brill | Nijhoff. p. 50.
• PAN, K., A Re-Examination of Estoppel in International Jurisprudence. Chinese Journal of International Law, 2018. 16(4): p. 761.
• PATEL, B.N. and B. Patel, “The World Court Reference Guide and Case-Law Digest: Judgments, Advisory Opinions and Orders of the International Court of Justice (2001-2010) and Case-Law Digest (1992-2010), in Territorial and Maritime Dispute between Nicaragua and Honduras in the Caribbean Sea (Nicaragua v. Honduras).” 2014, Brill | Nijhoff. p. 412.
• QIU, W. and W. Gullett, “Quantitative analysis for maritime delimitation: Reassessing the Bay of Bengal delimitation between Bangladesh and Myanmar.” Marine Policy, 2017. 78: p. 49.
• RHEE, S.-M., “Sea Boundary Delimitation Between States Before World War II.” American Journal of International Law, 1982. 76(3): p. 562.
• RIESENBERG, D.P., “International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea: Delimitation of the Maritime Boundary between Bangladesh and Myanmar in the Bay of Bengal (Bangladesh/Myanmar).” International Legal Materials, 2012. 51(4): p. 850.
• SCOVAZZI, T., R. Barnes, and R. Long, “Frontiers in International Environmental Law: Oceans and Climate Challenges: Essays in Honour of David Freestone, in Chapter 8 The Frontier in the Historical Development of the International Law of the Sea.” 2021, Brill | Nijhoff. p. 229.
• SHAH, R., “Bangladesh–Myanmar ITLOS Verdict: Precedence for India?” Strategic Analysis, 2013. 37(2): p. 178.
• STEINER, Z.S. and K. Neilson, “Britain, Germany and France, 1912–14: Flexibility and Constraint, in Britain and the Origins of the First World War.” 2003, Macmillan Education UK: London. p. 100-116.
• SUAREZ, S.V., “The Arbitral award in the Bangladesh/India Maritime Delimitation in the Bay of Bengal and Its Contribution to International Maritime Boundary Law: A Case Commentary.” Maritime Safety and Security Law Journal, 2016(2): p. 83.
• TAN, K.Y. and A.A. Faruque, “Asian Yearbook of International Law, Volume 18 (2012). Judgment in Maritime Boundary Dispute between Bangladesh and Myanmar: Significance and Implications under International Law.” 2016: Brill | Nijhoff. 70.
• TANAKA, Y., “Reflections On Maritime Delimitation In The Romania/Ukraine Case Before The International Court Of Justice.” Netherlands International Law Review, 2009. 56(3): p. 403.
• TANAKA, Y., “The International Law of the Sea.” Chinese Journal of International Law, 2011. 10(1): p. 173-175.
• THIRLWAY, H., “The Law and Procedure of the International Court of Justice 1960-1989: Part Seven.” The British Yearbook of INTERNATIONAL LAW, 1996. 66(1): P. 50.
• VEGA-BARBOSA, G., “The Admissibility of Outer Continental Shelf Delimitation Claims Before the ICJ Absent a Recommendation by the CLCS.” Ocean Development & International Law, 2018. 49(2): p. 111.
• VINATA, R.T., M.T. Kumala, and C. Yustisia Serfiyani, “Climate change and reconstruction of Indonesia’s geographic basepoints: Reconfiguration of baselines and Indonesian Archipelagic Sea lanes.” Marine Policy, 2023. 148: p. 2.