f.

The Continental Shelf

P3.1 Guinea v. Guinea Bissau, ILR 77, 1985

FACTS: France and Portugal signed a Convention for the delimitation of their respective
possessions in West Africa. Article 1 of the Convention posed no difficulty until 1958, when
Portugal granted an oil concession to a foreign company. Portugal, the later Guinea and
Guinea-Bissau, proceeded to issue laws and decrees defining their territorial waters.
Consequently, the maritime areas over which Guinea and Guinea-Bissau claimed to exercise
jurisdiction overlapped. Guinea asserted that the “southern limit” not only established which
islands belonged to Portugal, but also represented a general maritime boundary. They also
contended that the delimitation should be sought by applying the “southern limit” of the 1886
Convention, extending it as far as might be necessary, beyond the meridian of Cape Roxo until
200-mile limit. On the other hand, Guinea-Bissau contended that the only purpose of the
“southern limit” mentioned in the 1886 Convention was to designate the islands belonging to
Potugal. Guinea-Bissau then argued that the delimitation should be an equidistance line,
starting from the low-mark of the coasts of the Parties.

ISSUE: Whether the Franco-Portugese Convention of May 12 1886 determined the maritime
boundary between the French and Portuguese possessions in West Africa.

RULING: The Arbitral Tribunal noted that the 1886 Convention remained in force between
France and Portugal until the end of the colonial period, and then became binding as between
Guinea and Guinea-Bissau by virtue of the principle of uti possidetis. The Tribuan recalled that
in the minutes of the negotiations of 1885-1886, there was no reference to the delimitation of
territorial waters, except in a proposed draft text of the last paragraph of Article 1, which is
submitted suddenly by France and was immediately withdrawn by Portugal. As no explanation
was given in the minutes for the submission and withdrawal of this draft, the Tribunal
considered that the two States did not intend to fix a general maritime boundary. As for the
course of the delimitation line, the Tribunal noted that both Parties took the view that customary
international law was enshrined in the recent 1982 UNCLOS, even though it was not yet in
force. The Tribunal observed that, according article 74, paragraph 1, and article 83, paragraph
1, of the Convention, the aim of any delimitation process is to achieve an equitable solution
having regard to the relevant circumstances. In order to ensure that the delimitation rests on an
equitable and objective basis, every effort must be made to guarantee that each State controls
the maritime areas situated in front of the coasts and in proximity to them.

P3.1 Aegean Sea Continental Shelf Case (Greece v. Turkey), ICJ Reports, 1978

FACTS: Turkey granted petroleum exploration permits in the Aegean Sea over areas of seabed
that Greece claimed belonged to its islands. Greece took this as a unilateral delimitation of the
Aegean continental shelf, and thus instituted this present action.

According to Greece: Greek islands in the Aegean are entitled to their own continental shelves.
While Turkey claims that: Greek islands close to the Turkish coasts donot possess continental
shelves of their own; The sea-bed of the Aegean geographically forms a natural prolongation
of the Turkish land mass; hence the Turkish continental shelf should extend further into the
Aegean up to the median line.
HELD: The Court does not have jurisdiction over the case; hence, it declined to rule on the
continental shelf issue.

While the Court refused to rule on the substantive issues of the case, the controversy
nonetheless presents an interesting case of continental shelf delimitation. This issue remains
unresolved to this day. Siding with Greece would significantly diminish Turkey’s rights to the
Aegean given their geographical proximity. Siding with Turkey would deprive Greek islands
of its waters.

Sir’s proposed solution: Give Turkey its continental shelf, but leave small pockets of water as
Greek territorial seas. The Portico Doctrine in the Eritrea-Yemen Arbitration Case (supra., p.
31) can find application here. (Karichi Notes, citing Prof. Roque, 2010) (page 53)

P3.1 Anglo-French, ICJ Reports, 1979

The United Kingdom and France entered into negotiations and subsequent 1977 arbitration for
the delimitation of the continental shelf between them. This decision provided for a: primary
boundary line between the French coast and the UK mainland coast, drawn on the basis of the
equidistance principle; (Line A) and 12-mile UK exclave north of the Channel Islands (UK
territory), since said islands were located within the French side of the primary boundary line.
(Line B)

UK: Technical issue: the chart provided for in and the dispositif of the 1977 decision ignored
certain basepoints that should be sued in drawing the median/equidistance line; hence it did not
reflect description in the decision itself, which must be corrected.

France: The mistake is but a minor inconsistency which can be ignored; The dispositif must be
followed; modification is not allowed.

HELD: The changes may be effected; the boundary should be rectified so as to take
account of the base-points previously not taken into account.

Parties agree that there is a discrepancy in the drawing of the boundary. It was a material error
which the court has the power to rectify. The court left it to the parties to effect a correction
consistent with the decision.

Court proceeded to discuss the actual delimitation of the continental shelf. (SEE PAGE
54)

P3.1 Case Concerning Maritime Delimitation in the area between Greenland and Jan Mayen
(Denmark v. Norway), 1993

FACTS: This case is a dispute regarding the extent of the continental shelves of Denmark and
Norway in the area between Greenland (Danish) and the island of Jan Mayen (Norwegian).

Denmark: Denmark is entitled to a fisheries zone/continental shelf extending up to

200 nautical miles from the coast of Greenland; a single delimitation line
should be drawn for the purpose.
Norway: A median line drawn from equidistant points between Greenland and Jan Mayen is
the proper boundary.

HELD: The Court found that there was no agreement between the parties to draw a single line
for the delimitation of their fisheries zone and continental shelf boundaries. Hence, it proceeded
to examine the boundaries separately.

For the continental shelf delimitation, the Court found the 1958 Geneva Convention to be the
applicable law, while the fishery zone shall be governed by the relevant customary law. Also,
the court said that special or relevant circumstances, pursuant to the 1958 Geneva Convention
and to customary law shall be considered, to the effect that the shifting of the provisionally
drawn median line is required. (SEE PAGE 55)

P3.1 Canada & France, St. Pierre

FACTS: Saint Pierre & Miquelon are two French islands close to the Canadian coast. The
trigger of this case is the issuing by the two parties of hydrocarbon exploration permits in the
area, with both contending that the other did not have the
right to do so.

Its territorial maritime boundary with Canada was first delimited by virtue of a 1972 treaty
signed by both Canada and France. Towards the 20th century, each country began to extend
their claimed territorial limit, first to 12 nautical miles, then to 200 nautical miles; to the end
that the parties’ claims began to overlap. Also, the maritime boundaries beyond the territorial
sea – the extent of the EEZ (which is determinative of the Parties’ exclusive right to fish) –
remained in dispute.

France: Delimitation of the continental shelf shall be based on the equidistance principle;
Canada: Special circumstances rule should be applicable.

HELD: The question on which method of delimitation shall be applied is determined primarily
by the geographical circumstances – but rules on international law as well as equitable
principles must also be taken in consideration in order to add relevance and weight to the
geographical circumstances. (SEE PAGE 56)