INTERNATIONALDECISIONS

Edited byDavid J.Bederman

- maritime
CourtofJustice
International delimitation - relevant - testofdisproportion-
coasts
methodology
- selection basepoints- relevantcircumstances
ality of
Athttp://www.icj-cij.org.
v.Ukraine).
MaritimeDelimitationinthe Black Sea (Romania
CourtofJustice,
International 3,2009.
February

On February 3,2009,theInternational CourtofJustice delivered a unanimous decisionin

thecasebetween RomaniaandUkraine concerning the delimitation of their maritime bound-
aryintheBlackSea.1The delimitation wascarried outinthenorthwestern partoftheBlack
Sea intheconcavity formed by Romania's coastto the west and Ukraine's coast to thewest,
north,andeast(seemap).Theadjacent coastsoftheparties meetattheir shared landboundary
terminus ontheRiverDanubedelta.Ukraine's Serpents'Island liesapproximately twenty nau-
ticalmileseastoftheDanubedelta.TheCourtusedtheequidistance method todelimitfive-
a
pointboundary startingatPoint1: theintersection oftheouterlimitsoftheRomanianand
Ukrainian seasagreedbytheparties
Island)territorial
(Serpents' in their2003 StateBorder
RegimeTreaty(2003Treaty), whichentered intoforceon May27, 2004.2Between Point1
andPoint2, theboundary follows thetwelve-nautical-mile territorial sea outer limit ofSer-
pents'Island.BeyondPoint2 themaritime boundary is an equidistance linemeasured from
theadjacentmainland coastsofRomaniaandUkraine(Point2-Point3-Point4) andthen
between theoppositemainland coastsofRomaniaandUkraine's CrimeanPeninsula(Point
4 -Point5). SouthofPoint5 theboundary continues ina specified direction "untilitreaches
theareawheretherights ofthirdStatesmaybe affected" (para.219).3
Romaniainitiated theproceedings beforetheCourtwithitsSeptember 16,2004,submis-
sionofanapplication requestingtheCourt to draw "a single maritime boundary between the

1Maritime DelimitationintheBlackSea (Rom.v. Ukr.)(Int'lCt.JusticeFeb.3, 2009).The basicdocuments,

decisions,
pleadings, press
transcripts, and
releases, other materialsforthiscaseand othersareavailableon the
Court'sWebsite,<http://www.icj-cij.org>.
2 TheCourtused"2003StateBorder tosimplifythenameoftheTreaty Between Romaniaand
RegimeTreaty"
UkraineontheRomanian-Ukrainian StateBorderRegime, andMutualAssistance
Collaboration on BorderMat-
June17,2003,2277 UNTS 3 (para.21).
ters,
3 The thirdstates areBulgaria andTurkey.Thesetwostateshavedelimited most
whoserights maybe affected
oftheirmaritimeboundary, the
leaving endpoint along thenortheasternmostsegment tobe "finalized at
later sub-
Agreement
sequentnegotiations." BetweentheRepublicofTurkeyandtheRepublicofBulgaria on theDelimi-
tationoftheBoundary in theMouthoftheRezovska/Mutludere RiverandDelimitation oftheMaritime Areas
Between theTwoStatesintheBlackSea,Art.4( 1) ,Dec. 4,1997,2087UNTS 5. Similar language isusedtodescribe
theendpoint inthewesternmost segmentofthemaritime boundary between UkraineandTurkey. SeeAgreement
Concerning theDelimitation ofthe Shelf
Continental in theBlackSea, Art.
Turk.-U.S.S.R., 1 ,June 23, 1978,1247
UNTS 137.RomaniaandBulgaria havenotdelimited theirmaritimeboundary.
543
544 THE AMERICANJOURNALOF INTERNATIONAL LAW [Vol. 103

FIGURE 1. MARITIME DELIMITATION AREA.

continental shelfand theexclusiveeconomiczonesofthetwoStates"(para. 11, quotingRoma-

nia's application).Romaniasoughtto foundjurisdictionon Article36(1) of theICJ Statute
and paragraph4(h) of the AdditionalAgreementto the Treatyon the Relationsof Good
Neighbourliness and Co-operationBetweenRomaniaand Ukraine(1997 Treaty).Both the
AdditionalAgreement and the 1997 TreatyweresignedJune2, 1997, and enteredintoforce
simultaneously on October22, 1997. As quoted bytheCourt (para.20), thecompromissory
clauseof paragraph4(h) ofthe AdditionalAgreementreads,in relevantpart:
shallnotdeterminetheconclusionoftheabove-mentioned
If thesenegotiations [delim-
itation]agreementin a reasonabletime,butnotlaterthan2 yearssincetheirinitiation,
the
Governmentof Romaniaand theGovernmentof Ukrainehaveagreedthattheproblem
ofdelimitationof thecontinentalshelfand theexclusiveeconomiczones shallbe solved
bytheUN International CourtofJustice,attherequestofanyoftheParties,providedthat
theTreatyon theregimeof theStateborderbetweenRomaniaand Ukrainehas entered
intoforce.
The Courtconcludedthatbothconditionsofthecompromissory clausehad beenfulfilled:
the
had
parties negotiatedwithout successfrom1998 to 2004, and the 2003 Treatyhad entered
intoforceseveralmonthsbeforeRomania fileditsapplication(para. 21).
Ukrainedid notcontesttheCourt'sjurisdiction, butitdid questionthescopeofthatjuris-
diction in relationto the firstsegmentof Romania's boundaryclaim- betweenPoint F
(Romania'snamefortheendpointofthe2003 Treaty)and PointX. Betweenthesetwopoints
2009] INTERNATIONAL DECISIONS 545

Romania's claimfollowed thetwelve-nautical-mile outerlimitofSerpents' Island'sterritorial

sea and wouldseparate Ukraine'sterritorial sea fromRomania'sexclusive economiczone
(EEZ) andcontinental shelf.Romaniaarguedthatsegment F-Xhadbeenestablished byagree-
mentbetween theparties andaskedtheCourttoconfirm thissegment oftheboundary before
proceeding todelimit theremaining boundary beyondPointX. Ukraine arguedonthemerits
thatthissegment hadnotbeenagreed, andmadethejurisdictional argument thatitwasbeyond
thescopeoftheCourt'sjurisdiction to delimit maritime zones other than thosespecifically
referred toinparagraph 4(h) oftheAdditional -
Agreementnamely, theEEZ andcontinental
shelf(para.24). The Courtagreedthatithad"nojurisdiction todelimit theterritorial seasof
theParties" butdisagreed thatitwastherefore from
prevented delimiting between "on theone
hand,theexclusive economiczoneandthecontinental shelfofoneState,and,on theother
hand, the territorial sea of the otherState at itsseaward limit"(para.30).
FromPointX toPointT, theRomanian claimfollowed themedianlinebetween theparties'
adjacent mainland coasts.TheRomanian claimturned southatPointT following themedian
the
linebetween parties' opposite mainland coasts and stopped atPoint Z. Ukraine's boundary
claimstarted at Point1 (Ukraine's namefortheendpoint ofthe2003 Treaty)andfollowed
a medianlinebetween Romania'smainland coastandthecoastofSerpents' Islandthrough
Point2 to Point3. FromPoint3 the Ukraine boundary claim followed a specified azimuth
"untilit reache[d]a pointwheretheinterests of thirdStatespotentially come into play"
(para.13). The equidistance method underlay both claims. The major differences between
themconcerned thestarting pointoftheequidistance delimitation (Ukraine's Point1 versus
Romania'sPointX) andthetreatment ofSerpents' -
Island thatis,whether togiveSerpents'
Island fulleffect in the delimitation or no effect beyond its own twelve-nautical-mile territo-
rialsea.
The Courtfirst resolved thedifference betweentheparties'starting-point positions. It
rejected Romania'sargument thatPointX represented theendpoint ofan agreedmaritime
boundary either between theterritorialseasoftheparties (paras.55-66) orbetween Ukraine's
sea andRomania'scontinental
territorial shelfand EEZ (paras.67-76). Instead,theCourt
foundthatArticle 1 of the 2003 Treaty established thestarting pointofthepresent delimi-
tationbyfixing theendpoint oftheparties' territorialseaboundary at Point 1 (para.66).
The Courtthenturned toitsanalysisoftherelevant coastsandrelevant maritime area,de-
thattheentireRomanian coast was relevant to the delimitation and that mostof
termining
Ukraine's mainland coastwasrelevant, fromthelandboundary terminus with Romania to
onthesouthern tipoftheCrimean Peninsula (paras.88,98-103). However, the
CapeSarych
CourtfoundthatthecoastsofUkraine's Karkinits'ka Gulf were notrelevant since they "face
eachother"and"do notprojectintheareatobe delimited" (para.100),5andthatthe"coast
ofSerpents' Islandissoshort thatitmakesnorealdifference totheoverall length oftherelevant
coastsoftheParties" (para.102). TheCourt found a coastal length ratiobetween Romaniaand
Ukraineof 1:2.8 (para.104). The CourtexcludedthewatersoftheKarkinits'ka Gulffrom
itsrelevant maritime area,whichotherwise includedall theareain thenorthwest BlackSea

4 Artide 1 of the2003 Point 1. The textof

TreatyprovidesthecoordinatesofwhattheCourt and Ukrainecall
Article1 is quoted at paragraph63.
5 The Court's fromthattakenwithrespectto theBay of Fundyin Delimitationofthe
approachhereis different
MaritimeBoundaryin theGulfofMaine Area, 1984 ICJ REP. 246, para. 221 (Oct. 12).
546 THE AMERICAN LAW
OF INTERNATIONAL
JOURNAL [Vol. 103

from thecoastsoftheparties toactualornotional delimitations withneighboring states tothe

south(paras.110-14).
The Courtfollowed a standard, three-stage delimitation methodology, firstestablishing a
provisional equidistance line based on "methods that are geometrically objective" (para.116),
secondconsidering "whether there arefactors calling for theadjustment orshifting ofthepro-
visionalequidistance linein orderto achievean equitableresult" (para.120), and thirdver-
ifyingthattheprovisional equidistance line,adjustedornot,doesnot"leadtoan inequitable
result
by reason ofany marked disproportion between theratiooftherespective coastallengths
andtheratiobetween therelevant maritime areaofeachState"(para.122).
Beforeundertaking to construct theactualorobjective provisional equidistance line,the
Courttookthepreliminary, andarguably subjective, step selecting points be used
of base to
intheconstruction. in
The Court'sgoal thispart of the delimitation exercise wasto"identify
theappropriate pointson theParties' relevant coastorcoastswhichmarka significant change
inthedirection ofthecoast,insucha waythatthegeometrical figure formed bythelinecon-
necting all thesepointsreflects thegeneral direction ofthecoastlines" (para.127).Notably,
theCourteliminated Serpents' Island as a source of base points on Ukraine's coast,stating that
to"countSerpents' Island as a relevant part ofthe coast would amount tografting an extraneous
element ontoUkraine's coastline; theconsequence wouldbe a judicialrefashioning ofgeog-
raphy" 1
(para. 49) .6The Court also eliminated the base pointon theseaward end of Romania's
7.5-kilometer-long Sulinadykeandsubstituted a basepointon thelandward endofthedyke
(paras. 138-41). The Court selected two base points on Romania's coast (on theSacalin
Peninsula andthelandward endofSulinadyke)andthreebasepointson Ukraine's coast(on
Tsyganka IslandonUkraine's sideoftheentrance totheDanubeandonCapeTarkhankut and
Cape Khersones) to construct its provisional equidistance line A-B-C (para.154).
The Courtthenconsidered several factors orrelevant circumstances thatmight callforthe
adjustment of theprovisional equidistance line. The relevant circumstances included dispro-
portionate coastallengths (paras.158-68), theenclosednature oftheBlackSea andexisting
maritime delimitations intheregion(paras.169-78), thepresence ofSerpents' Islandinthe
delimitation area(paras.179-88), theconductoftheparties (paras.189-98),possible cutoff
effects(paras.199-201), and security considerations (paras.202-04). The Courtfoundno
reasontoadjustitslineon thebasisofthesefactors, though itdidmakeminoradjustments in
ordertostarttheboundary atthepointfixedinthe2003 Treaty(Point1) andtoallowa full
twelve-nautical-mile territorial seaforSerpents' Island(Point2). TheCourtturned tothethird
stageof its delimitation - the disproportionality test- and found no significant dispropor-
tionality between thecoastallength ratio(1:2.8) andtheratioofmaritime areafalling tothe
parties(1:2.1) (paras.210-16).
****

6 The ofgeography" hasmoreoftenbeenusedinarguments

phrase"refashioning againstreducingtheeffectof
a naturally
occurringfeatureor coastalconfiguration.
See,e.g.,NorthSea Continental Shelf(FRG/Den.;FRG/
Neth.),1969ICJREP.3, paras.89-91 (Feb.20) (recognizingtheconcaveconfiguration ofGermany'scoastas "a
naturalgeographical
feature"and notingthattheapplicationofequitableprinciplesunderthesecircumstances
wouldnotequateto a complete ofgeography);
refashioning Continental
Shelf(UK/Fr.),18 R.I.A.A.3, 113-14
(June30, 1977) (notingthattheprojectionoftheCornishpeninsulaandScillyIsles"isa geographical
fact,a fact
ofnature").HeretheCourtusesthephraseas a justification
fortheelimination ofa naturally feature.
occurring
2009] INTERNATIONAL DECISIONS 547

TheCourtdelivered a straightforward, singlemaritime boundary applying theequidistance

methodto theadjacentandoppositemainland coastalgeography of the parties. The unani-
mous,reasoned judgment is notlikely tostirmuchexcitement orcontroversy withinthede-
limitation community. Nonetheless, the Court's treatment of Serpents' Island - thecentral
feature inthisdelimitation - merits briefcomment.
Serpents' Islandhadfourpotential rolestoplayinthisdelimitation. First,thecoastofSer-
pents'Islandcouldform partofUkraine's relevantcoastforthepurpose ofdetermining coastal
length.The Court neitherincluded norexplicitlyeliminated the coast ofSerpents' Island when
calculating coastal length, notingthat, because it wasso short, including it or not would be
inconsequential to thegeneralized exerciseofdetermining theoverall coastal lengths ofthe
parties(para. 102).7
Second,thecoastofSerpents' Islandisa legitimate sourceofbasepointsfrom whichtomea-
surethe breadth ofany maritime zones it mightgenerate. Which maritime zones Serpents'
Islandisentitled togenerate isa question ofitsstatusunderArticle 121oftheUN Convention
on theLaw oftheSea.8RomaniaarguedthatSerpents' Islandwas"incapable ofsustaining
humanhabitation oreconomiclifeofitsown"andwastherefore a "rock"notentitled toan
EEZ or continental shelf under Article 121(3) (para.124). Ukraine argued that Serpents'
Islandwasnota rock,butan islandentitled togenerate thesamemaritime zonesas anyother
coastalterritory in accordance withArticle121(2) (para.184). Havingremoved Serpents'
Islandfrom thedelimitation process at an earlierstage,theCourt noted that itdid "not need
toconsider whether Serpents' Island fallsunder paragraphs 2 or 3 ofArticle 121 ... nor their
relevance to thiscase"(para.187).
Third,theCourtdistinguished theaboveroleofSerpents' Islandas a sourceofbasepoints
formeasuring thebreadth ofitsmaritime zonesfrom itspossibleroleasa sourceofbasepoints
forconstructing anequidistant boundary (para.137).9Whereas theselection ofbasepointsfor
measuring thebreadth ofmaritime zonesislargely a matter the
for particular coastalstate,the
selectionofbasepointsina judicialdelimitation between statesisforthecourttodecide{id).
In thecaseathand,theCourtexercised thispowerpriorto,andforthepurpose of,calculating
itsprovisional equidistance line:iteliminated expropio motu10 the seaward end of Sulinadyke
-
(paras.138 40) andalso,as Romaniahadargued, on
anypoints Serpents' Island (para.149).
7 The total whereastheCourtassessedUkraine's
2 kilometers,
lengthofSerpents'Island'scoastis approximately
relevantcoast to be approximately705 kilometers(paras. 16, 103).
8 Artidel21
("Regimeof islands")provides:
1. An islandis a naturallyformedarea of land, surroundedbywater,whichis above waterat hightide.
2. Exceptas providedforin paragraph3, theterritorial sea, the contiguouszone, theexclusiveeconomic
zone and the continentalshelfof an island are determinedin accordancewith the provisionsof this
Conventionapplicableto otherland territory.
3. Rockswhichcannotsustainhumanhabitationor economiclifeoftheirown shallhaveno exclusiveeco-
nomiczone or continentalshelf.
9 The Court noted that

theissueofdetermining thebaselineforthepurposeof measuring thebreadthofthecontinentalshelfand the

exclusiveeconomiczone and theissueofidentifying base pointsfordrawingan equidistance/median line for
the purposeof delimiting the continentalshelfand the exclusiveeconomic zone betweenadjacent/opposite
Statesare two differentissues.(Para. 137, emphasisadded)
10Both used the seaward end of Sulina dykein the constructionof theirequidistance-basedboundary
parties
claims(paras. 151-52). In thecourseof oral argument,however,Ukrainequestionedwhyitwould be "equitable
548 THE AMERICAN LAW
OF INTERNATIONAL
JOURNAL [Vol. 103

Theelimination ofthesefeatures as basepointsoccurred inthefirst stepofthefirst stageof

theCourt'sthree-stage delimitation methodology. -
Whiletheresult givingno effect inthe
finaldelimitationtobasepointsonSulinadykeorSerpents' Island- isnotsurprising, theorder
inwhichtheCourtaddressed thesefeatures wasnotinkeeping withtherecent procedural prac-
ticeofinternational courtsandtribunals. Morecommonly, a courtortribunal willconstruct
theprovisional lineusingallfeatures. xl This"strict" line
equidistance provisional equidistance
is thenscrutinized in lightofrelevant circumstances, the
including disproportionately large
effectthatsmallfeatures, suchasislandsorextensive banks,
drying might haveonthedirection
oftheprovisional equidistance line.12Ifsucha disproportionate effect is created,theprovi-
sionalequidistance -
linemaythenbe adjusted in thesecondstageofthedelimitation - by
giving lessthanfulleffect tothedistorting feature, orbyeliminating itfrom theequidistance
calculation entirely,in order to achieve an equitable result.13
Fourth, byremoving Serpents' Islandfromthedelimitation calculation atan earlier
stage,
theCourtreduced theimportance ofSerpents' Island'spotential roleasa relevant circumstance
orfactor callingforanadjustment totheprovisional equidistance line.Evenso,theCourtdid
takeintoaccountthepresence ofSerpents' Islandand,havingalready eliminated itfromthe
equidistance calculation, foundthatit"doesnotcallforanadjustment oftheprovisional equi-
distance line"(para.187).14
Eliminating a feature before calculating theprovisional equidistance lineis unusual,15but
itcouldprovea useful procedural modelinthefuture. Here,itallowedtheCourttoavoidthe
of
question Serpents' Island's Article 121 status - a questionthatwasnotcentral tothecase.
This procedural modelwill,moreover, giveparties to future delimitation casesadditional
arguments regarding the role ofsmall features in delimitations, as well as rationalesfortheir

toaccorda man-made structure

consisting oftwolow,thinstoneembankments, about150 mapart, 7.5 km
jutting
long,a fulleffect forthedelimitation ofthecontinental shelfandexclusive economiczone,whilea muchlarger
naturalislandshouldreceive noequivalent treatment."Verbatim Record,ICJDoc. CR 2008/32,para.90 (Sept.18,
2008).
11SeeContinental Shelf(UK/Fr.), 18 R.I.A.A.3 (June30, 1977);Maritime Delimitation
intheAreaBetween
Greenland andJanMayen(Den. v.Nor.),1993ICJREP.38 (June14);Eritrea v.Yemen,SecondStage,Maritime
Delimitation (Perm.Ct. Arb.Dec. 17, 1999),at http:www.pca-cpa.org (reportedbyW. MichaelReismanat
94 AJIL721 (2000)); Maritime Delimitation and TerritorialQuestionsBetweenQatarand Bahrain(Qatarv.
Bahr.),2001ICJREP.40 (Mar.16) (reported byGlenPlantat96 AJIL198(2002)) ; NovaScotiaV.Newfoundland
and Labrador, SecondPhase,MaritimeBoundary(Mar. 26, 2002), at http://www.nr.gov.nl.ca/mines%26en/
publications/offshore/dispute/phasell.pdf; Land and MaritimeBoundaryBetweenCameroonand Nigeria
(Cameroonv. Nig.;Eq. Guineaintervening), 2002 ICJREP.303 (Oct. 10) (reported byPeterBekker at97 AJIL
387 (2003)); Barbados v. TrinidadandTobago,27 R.I.A.A.147 (Apr.11, 2006); Guyanav. Suriname (UN Law
of theSea AnnexVII Arb.Trib. Sept. 17, 2007), at http://www.pca-cpa.org/upload/files/Guyana-Suriname
%20Award.pdf (reported byStephenFiettaat 102AJIL119 (2008)).
12SeeContinental
Shelf,para.244 (questioning whether theScillyIslesmight"distort theboundary andhave
disproportionate effects as between thetwostates").
13See, Continental Shelf(adjusting strict linebygiving theScillyIslesonlyhalfeffect);
e.g., equidistance Eritrea
v.Yemen(adjusting strictequidistancelinebygiving noeffecttoislandofal-Tayr andislandgroupofal-Zubayr);
Maritime Delimitation andTerritorialQuestions Between QatarandBahrain strict
(adjusting equidistancelineby
givingnoeffect toextensive dryingbanksofFashtalJarim); Newfoundland v.Labrador andNovaScotia(adjusting
strict
equidistance linebygivingno effect to SableIsland).
14However, Islandwas a
Serpents' given full,twelve-nautical-mile territorial
sea,whichhadtheeffect ofadjust-
ingtheCourt'sprovisional equidistance line.
15The Courtcitesat 149ofthejudgment toitstreatmentoftheisletofFilfainthedelimitation
paragraph case
between LibyaandMalta.TheretheCourt"[found]itequitablenottotakeaccountofFilfainthecalculation of
theprovisional medianlinebetweenMaltaand Libya."Continental Shelf(Libya/Malta), 1985 ICJREP. 13,
para.64 (June3).
2009] INTERNATIONAL DECISIONS 549

elimination.Many maritimedelimitationcases have containedsmall,potentiallydistorting

features,includingone delimitationcase on theCourt'sdocketat thetimeof thiswriting.16
The Court'sboundarycompletesmostof the maritimeboundarybetweenRomania and
Ukrainefromtheirsharedland boundaryterminuson theDanube deltato a tripointamong
thepartiesand,mostlikely,Turkeyas theirsouthernmaritimeneighbor.However,thesouth-
ernendoftheCourt'sboundaryisopen-endedandwillbe closedonlythroughagreement with
boundariesinthispartoftheBlackSea- betweenUkraine
a thirdstate.The twootherexisting
and Turkeyand betweenBulgariaand Turkey- are also "unfinished"in thearea of thetri-
- -
point.17The fourthboundaryin thearea betweenRomaniaand Bulgaria hasnotyetbeen
delimitedbut will likelyextendinto thissame area,creatinga second tripointor possiblya
quadpointin thewesternBlack Sea.
COALTERG. LATHROP
Sovereign Inc.
Geographic,

WTO - TRIPSAgreement - enforcement - - dona-

on censoredworks
ofintellectual
property copyright
- thresholds
tionsand auctionsofseizedgoods criminalprosecution

China- Measures Affectingthe Protection and Enforcementof Intellectual Prop-

ertyRIGHTS.WT/DS362/R. ^http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/cüspu_e/cases_e/ds362_e
WorldTradeOrganization 26, 2009 (adoptedMarch20, 2009).
Panel,January

The UnitedStatesfileda complaintundertheWorldTrade Organization(WTO) Agree-

menton Trade-RelatedAspectsof IntellectualPropertyRights1(TRIPS Agreement)against
China concerningthreeintellectual property aspectsofChineselaw and practice,namely,the
of
denial copyright protectionof censoredworks; the disposalby donationand auctionsof
seizedcounterfeit goods; and theunavailabilityof criminalsanctionsforpiracyand counter-
feitingof copyright and trademark rightsbelow certainthresholds. The panel report,subse-
quentlyadoptedby theW TO Dispute Settlement Body(DSB) acceptedthecomplainton the
,
firstpointbutmostlyrejectedtheothertwo.2Beyonditsanalysisofthethreeclaims,thereport
is interesting becauseitsuggestsan unexpecteddegreeofflexibility in WTO members'com-
pliance with the TRIPS Agreement and because it may also have blurredboththetraditional
distinction between"as such"and "as applied"claimsand the lineseparatingTRIPS violations
fromnon-violations.
claim,theUnitedStatesarguedthatArticle4 ofChina's CopyrightLaw is incon-
In itsfirst
sistentwithArticles5(1) and 5(2) oftheBerneConventionfortheProtectionofLiterary and

16The effectof islands,islets,and

cayswill be centralto the delimitationbetweenNicaragua and Colombia
currently before the Court. See and MaritimeDispute (Nicar. v. Colom.), PreliminaryObjections
Territorial
(Int'l Ct. JusticeDec. 13, 2007).
17See
supranote 3 and accompanyingtext.
1 MarrakeshAgreement
Agreementon Trade-RelatedAspectsof IntellectualPropertyRights,Apr. 15, 1994,
EstablishingtheWorld Trade Organization,Annex 1C [hereinafter TRIPS Agreement],Art.27, in THE LEGAL
Texts: The Results of the Uruguay Round of multilateral Trade Negotiations 365, reprinted
in33 ILM 1197 (1994).
2 Panel - the Protectionand Enforcementof IntellectualPropertyRights,
Report,China MeasuresAffecting
WT/DS362/R (Jan. 26, 2009) (adopted Mar. 20, 2009) [hereinafterPanel Report].Materialson specificWTO
disputesare availableonline at http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/find_dispu_cases_e.htm.