International Court Of Arbitration Decisions Supporting The EEZ Agreement Signed Between Tur-Lib
2009 ROMANIA-UKRAINE CASE
ROMANIA AND UKRAINE APPLIED TO THE INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE IN ORDER THE DISPUTE BETWEEN TWO STATES TO BE SOLVED ON DELIMITATION OF MARITIME JURISDICTION AREAS.
IN ITS JUDGEMENT THE COURT DECIDED THAT ‘THE SERPENT” ISLAND CANNOT GENERATE MARITIME ZONES BEYOND TERRITORIAL WATERS BREADTH IN DELIMITATION OF CONTINENTAL SHELF AND EEZ.
1990 ERITREA-YEMEN CASE
ERITREA AND YEMEN APPLIED TO THE INTERNATIONAL COURT OF ARBITRATION ON THE DISPUTE OVER THE SOVEREIGNTY OF SOME ISLANDS, ISLETS AND ROCKS IN THE RED SEA.
IN ITS JUDGEMENT THE COURT DECIDED THAT MENTIONED ISLANDS CANNOT GENERATE MARITIME ZONES BEYOND TERRITORIAL WATERS BREADTH IN DELIMITATION AND THOSE ISLANDS WERE IGNORED IN DRAWING OF THE EQUIDISTANCE LINE BETWEEN THE TWO STATES.
1982 CANADA-FRANCE (SAINT PIERRE & MIQUELON) CASE
UPON DISTANCE WAS ACCEPTED AS A FACTOR IN DETERMINING THE BREADTH OF THE CONTINENTAL SHELF, THE ISSUE OF DELIMITATION LINE TO LIMIT OR PREVENT THE OPEN SEA ACCESS OF THE COASTAL STATE HAS APPEARED.
IN THE DECISION OF THE ICJ IN THIS CASE, IT IS EMPHASIZED THAT CUT OFF OF STATES’ MARITIME JURISDICTION AREAS, WHICH IS A COMPLEMENTARY PART OF ITS MAINLAND, BY OTHER STATES’ MARITIME AREAS IS INCONSISTENT WITH THE EQUITABILITY PRINCIPLE.
IN THIS CONTEXT, ICJ DID NOT GIVE MARITIME AREAS EXTENDING SOUTHWEST TO THE FRENCH ISLANDS OFF THE COAST OF CANADA. IN ITS JUSTIFICATION, ICJ STATES THAT SUCH SITUATION LEADS FRENCH ISLANDS UP TO CUT OFF CANADIAN SHORES’ MARITIME AREAS.
IN ITS JUDGEMENT THE COURT DECIDED NOT TO ASSIGN FULL EFFECT TO THE FRENCH ISLANDS OFF THE COAST OF CANADA AS MAINLANDS.
1992 LIBYA-MALTA CASE
LIBYA AND MALTA, APPLIED TO THE INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE IN ORDER THE DISPUTE BETWEEN TWO STATES TO BE SOLVED ON DELIMITATION OF MARITIME JURISDICTION AREAS. IN THIS CASE, MALTA CLAIMED THAT THE EQUIDISTANCE LINE SHOULD BE CONSIDERED ON THE DELIMITATION. LIBYA CLAIMED THAT MALTA SHOULD BE GIVEN LESS MARITIME JURISDICTION AREAS AS MALTA WAS AN ISLAND STATE.
IN ITS JUDGEMENT THE COURT DECIDED TO ALLOCATE SMALLER MARITIME JURISDICTION AREA THAN CLAIMED BY MALTA IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PRINCIPLE OF EQUITABILITY AND CORRECTED THE MEDIAN LINE IN FAVOR OF LIBYA, A COASTAL STATE, BY SHIFTING THE MEDIAN LINE 18 NM NORTH TOWARDS MALTA.
1969 NORTH SEA CASE
DURING THIS CASE HOLLAND AND DENMARK CLAIMED THAT THE EQUIDISTANCE METHOD SHOULD BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT, AND GERMANY CLAIMED THAT THE DISPUTE SHOULD BE SOLVED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE APPLICATION OF EQUITABLE PRINCIPLES SINCE EQUIDISTANCE METHOD COULD NOT PROVIDE EQUITABLE SOLUTION OF THE DISPUTE. FURTHERMORE, GERMANY STATES ITS MAINLAND SHOULD NOT BE CUT OFF.
IN ITS JUDGEMENT THE COURT STATED THAT APPLICATION OF THE PRINCIPLE OF EQUIDISTANCE WAS NOT AN OBLIGATION AND ADDITIONALLY, RESHAPING OF THE GEOGRAPHY WAS NOT POSSIBLE.
FINALLY, GERMANY HAS BEEN ALLOCATED MORE MARITIME JURISDICTION AREAS THAN CLAIMED BY HOLLAND AND DENMARK.
1977 UK-FRANCE CASE
FRANCE CLAIMED THAT ART.6 IN 1958 CONTINENTAL SHELF CONVENTION COULD NOT BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT OWING TO FRANCE’S RESTRICTIONS IN THE ENGLISH CHANNEL SECTOR, AND ADDITIONAL CLAIMS STATING THAT THE SHORE WERE NEITHER OPPOSITE NOR ADJACENT IN THE ATLANTIC SECTOR. FRANCE ALSO CLAIMED THAT THE NATURAL PROLONGATION, AS FAR AS APPLICABLE, SHOULD BE CONSIDERED FOR DELIMITATION.
UK CLAIMED THAT THE PRINCIPLE OF EQUIDISTANCE SHOULD BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT FOR THE DELIMITATION. ARBITORS DECIDED TO IMPLEMENT CUSTOMARY LAW IN THE SECTOR OF ENGLISH CHANNEL WHERE FRANCE RESTRICTIONS WERE IN EFFECT AND ART. 6 IN THE ATLANTIC SECTOR. WHILE DETERMINING THE PROCEDURE, ARBITORS ALSO STATED THAT THE SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES IN ART. 6 WERE NOT EXEMPTIONS AND THIS ARTICLE WOULD BE IMPLEMENTED AS A COMBINATION OF EQUIDISTANCE/SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES.
IN ITS JUDGEMENT THE COURT DECIDED THAT THE ISLANDS, POSSESSED BY UK, ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE MID-CHANNEL MEDIAN LINE, WOULD BE GIVEN THE MARITIME JURISDICTION AREAS NOT MORE THAN THEIR TERRITORIAL WATERS.
