Clarebeth R.

Ramos

Guinea vs. Guinea-Bissau: Dispute Concerning Delimitation of Maritime Boundary

February 14, 1985

I. Doctrine
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.

II. 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.

III. Issue/s
Whether or not the 1886 Convention between France and Portugal establish the
maritime boundary between the respective possessions of two states

IV. 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.”