Guinea/Guinea-Bissau: Dispute Concerning Delimitation of Maritime

Boundary | February 14, 1985

Facts:
The boundary was established by Convention of May 12, 1886 entered into
by France and Portugal to delimit colonial land holdings in West Africa. It was
triggered by the possibility that petroleum deposits exist off the Guinean Coast
which prompted Portugal to award concessions for oil exploration in the area.

In June 1964, Guinea unilaterally established the lateral limits of its

territorial sea. Portugal continued its oil concessions off the Guinean coast and
claimed exclusive fishing jurisdiction in an area overlapping Guinea’s claimed
waters. During this, Portugal considered Guinea’s actions to be illegal, being a
violation of Article 12 paragraph 1 of the Geneva Convention on Territorial Sea and
the Contiguous Zone. In 1973, Guinea-Bissau gained independence and published
its claim of territorial seas in Official Journal but its claim was substantially the same
as Portugal’s claim but did not protest. Consequently, Guinea-Bissau denounced all
Portuguese oil concessions and started own seismic research operation in the claim.

In 1977, Guinea-Bissau initiated maritime delimitation negotiations with

Guinea in order to develop maritime resources. No oil company was willing to invest
substantially because it might result in unexpected financial obligation to two states.
Subsequent meetings were fruitless resulting to no agreement being made. Due to
an adverse economic impact, in December 1982, the case was submitted to an
Arbitral Tribunal wherein a Special Agreement was signed to create an Arbitral
Tribunal which would effect the delimitation of maritime boundaries.

Issue: Whether or not the 1886 Convention between France and Portugal establish
the maritime boundary between the respective possessions of two states

Ruling:
No. The Tribunal concluded that France and Portugal did not accomplish nor
intended to accomplish the establishment of a maritime delimitation by 1886
Convention. The word “limit” did not have legal meaning of a boundary, but rather
the more general meaning which was merely used to facilitate the definition of
Portugal’s island possession.

Each delimitation was unique and must be a result of the consideration of the
circumstances of each particular case, based on equitable and objective principles.
The Tribunal noted that the maritime zone claimed were prolongations out to sea of
the land territories. It is extensive and overlapping, affecting the neighboring
countries. The Tribunal examined the various unilateral delimitations previously
established by each state and rejected all. It limited itself to formulating a new
delimitation based on the objective of an equitable result for each state. As
contended by Guinea which was favored as opposed to Guinea-Bissau’s equidistant
limitation contention, a system of parallels of latitude is more effective, which
complied with the “southern limit.”