International Maritime Arbitration Between India And Its Neighbouring Coastal Countries By – Nakul Rajpurohit
International Maritime Arbitration
Between India And Its Neighbouring Coastal Countries
Authored By – Nakul Rajpurohit
INTRODUCTION
Although with clearly defined
boundaries, maritime disputes are very common in which many coastal states have
a tough competition among themselves over certain situations like boundaries
disputes as well as jurisdictional disputes, etc. The acquisition of
international legislation especially the laws of the seas focus on the disputes
related to international borders and jurisdictional issues. The research work
deals with the overview of the maritime international arbitration laws with the
arbitration of international maritime disputes between India and its adjacent
nations along with the issues and the cases in the Indian Ocean region
including the dispute with focus on what are the loopholes in international
legislation and the loopholes in the arbitration processes and jurisdictional
issues while dealing the cases in the international courts and tribunals.
finally, the paper deal with the conclusion along with suggestions to resolve
the loopholes as well as to improve the relationship of India with its
neighboring states in the case of international disputes.
Despite clearly mapped and drawn
borders, disputes concerning maritime issues are usually happening among the
coastal countries that compete with each other over several issues including
borders disputes as well as jurisdictional disputes, etc. Water is being used
as a widely accepted and popular means of trade and transport and has played an
essential role in growing maritime industry which further led to the economic
growth of a particular country. Maritime security has always been considered an
important point of tension for countries with coastal borders. The adaptation
of international water laws specifically focuses on international boundaries
disputes and jurisdictional issues. The research work deals with the newly
arising events in the number of incidents of disputes regarding the
jurisdictions along with other international disputes between nations regarding
their control, their maritime boundaries, and also other international dispute
situations near the Indian Ocean and its neighboring states.
The research work also looks at the
situations which have exposed India to maritime disputes and arbitration with
its neighboring countries and along with that also raises a query on the
position of India while handling these situations and disputes in the
international waters especially referring to the International maritime
arbitration. Although India being signatory to UNCLOS, there is a need to have
some more proper legislations in the national level so as to deal with the
coastal and maritime disputes, this research work specifically deals whether or
not there is a requirement for a proper and stricter law to deal with such
kinds of issues in the sea such as international maritime arbitration in the
context of India and its neighboring states.
Also, while dealing with the issues,
it revolves around the conditions in which Maritime security has always been an
important concern for the countries with coastal borders of India and its
neighboring regions.
MARITIME DISPUTE BETWEEN INDIA
AND BANGLADESH
(a). Background
The dispute started with an event
where the discovery of a tiny island in Bay of Bengal near the land boundary
between India and Bangladesh in 1974 was a major one. There was an all-out war
for possession of New Moore Island among India and Bangladesh. It looked like
there was no end in sight to this weird disagreement for 30 years until one day
the island just vanished.
What caused this to occur and does
this question necessitate a time travel back to November 1970 to get the answer
where the western and eastern shores of Bangladesh were slammed by a
catastrophic cyclone during that period, flooding farms and communities and
killing tens of thousands of people. This makes it one of the most devastating
natural catastrophes in history. It left behind Devastation and death. However,
it had also left behind something else. In 1974, satellites caught their first
glimpse of the tiny island. Approximately 2.5 square kilometers in size. The
island was being discovered by India and they termed it as New Moore Island.
Island was found just four years
later by Bangladesh and renamed it as South Talpatti Island. Now, it may be
difficult to comprehend the significance of this little, desolate island to
both countries. That was for a good purpose. The Radcliffe Line was established
when India got independence from Pakistan in 1947. The Thalweg Principle, which
uses the Middle Channel Flow Principle to determine India's maritime border
with East Pakistan, is based on this. Borders between nations that are divided
by a river tend to go along the riverbed's deepest sections. The Thalweg is the
name given to this dividing line.
The Hariabhanga River divides
Bangladesh from India. In the Sundarbans, this is a deep natural border. For as
long as this new island remained in existence, each country claimed it as their
own property at its most remote point. Both nations saw the need to maintain
control over it because it would expand their respective boundaries and because
the area appeared to be rich in natural resources like gas and oil. Things
began to shift as diplomatic negotiations progressed.
The Indian Navy's INS Sandhayak
arrived on the island at that time with a research vessel. Three Bangladeshi
gunboats halted India's advance after they raised the flag and established a
line of huts and tents. Until the matter could be settled peacefully, India had
no choice but to refer to the island as "no man's land".
Until 2003, when Media in Bangladesh
claimed that India's BSF has established a naval station on New Moore Island,
causing tensions to rise. To put it another way, climate change has had a
significant impact on this conflicted island, and although no one from either
of the warring groups noticed it until 2011, satellite imaging indicates that
where there used to be a lake, there now isn't. The existence of the island was
established by more exact observations and eyewitness statements. The issues
faced by neighboring islands much transcend any territorial disputes they may
have.
(c). Political and diplomatic aspect-In this Declaration in the Bangladesh
vs. Myanmar case, Judge Rudiger Wolfrum, referring to the fact that the UNCLOS
did not specify a delimitation method for the exclusive economic zone and the
continental shelf, argued that a court or tribunal’s rulings on delimitation
have a ‘law-making function.[1]
"The acquis Communautaire, a source of international law within the
meaning of Article 38(1)(d)(ii) of the Statute of the International Court of
Justice and should be read in connection with Articles 73 and 84 of the
UNCLOS," are the prior decisions on delimitation. The ruling on the 7th of
July, 2014, was the first time the continental shelf is being explained beyond
the area of 200 nautical miles by a court. To resolve and clarify legal
concerns connecting it to the demarcation of continental shelf region beyond
200 nautical miles, opportunity was offered. However, this option was not fully
utilized by the arbitral panel.
When it came time to determine how
far the parties' rights extended beyond 200 nautical miles, there was no clear
answer. The arbitral panel failed to enforce the legislation of each coastal
state before a court might discover an overlap. A continental shelf that
extends beyond 200 nautical miles has a different ownership basis than a
continental shelf which is closer to 200 nautical miles. A large continental
shelf can only be able to be claimed by coastal nations that have a
geologically diverse bottom and subsoil, as stated in Article 76(4). As far as
the CLCS is concerned, a coastal state must be able to establish or prove
decisively that its external boundaries extend beyond 200 nautical miles before
drawing or drawing external borders that extend beyond 200 nautical miles.[2] As
a result, the CLCS refers to this as a "examination of the issue" and
requires a coastal state to identify the base of the embankment using one as
well as both of paragraphs 4 (a) I of Article 76 UNCLOS and paragraph 4 (a)
(ii) to assess the sedimentary rock thickness. Both states had already provided
their remarks on this issue for the CLCS, therefore requiring proof of the
parties' rights would have been unnecessary. Arbitrators did not compel parties
to present proof for claims exceeding 200 nautical miles under Article 76 (4),
but instead rely on the parties' assertion that each was being entitled so as
to get area of continental shelf in excess of this distance based on their
claims.[3]
Article 76 UNCLOS is the only provision that may be relied upon to assess
whether or not a claimant has the legal right to sue in the first place.[4]
Because of this, the majority must
prove that continental shelf above 200 nautical miles has a separate legal
foundation from distance-based maritime zones, which requires investigation of
problems that differ from those underlying demarcation of zones under 200
nautical miles. Continental complaints are based on Article 76's geological and
geomorphological norms for continental plates beyond 200 nautical miles, as
opposed to maritime complaints, which are based on the length of the voyage.
During the definition of continental shelf after 200 nautical miles,
arbitrators emphasized this particular conceptual difference. Additionally,
Article 76 (4) of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea controls.
Beyond the 200-nautical-mile limit, the limits of the continental shelf are
determined using calculations outlined in Article 76. (4). For continental
margins that are more than 200 nautical miles from baselines used to measure
territorial sea's breadth, either a mark being drawn as per paragraph 7 using
the outermost fixed points, or a line drawn in accordance with paragraph 8
using the same fixed points but using different thicknesses of the sedimentary
rock, must be used to define the coastal state's outer edge.
The majority should have also
elaborated that the continental shelf beyond 200 nm has a different legal basis
of title than that of maritime zones based on distance, thereby warranting
consideration of the issues that differ from the principles applied to the
delimitation of areas within 200 nm. Title to maritime areas within 200 nm is
based on distance, whereas title to the continental shelf beyond 200 nm rests
on geological and geomorphological requirements in accordance with Article 76.
The Arbitral Tribunal was actually aware of this conceptual difference and indeed
stated that in the delimitation of the continental shelf beyond 200 nm, in
addition to Article 83, Article 76(4) UNCLOS also applied.104 Article 76(4)
refers to the formulas that coastal States must apply in delineating the outer
limits of the continental shelf beyond 200 nm.[5]
MARITIME DISPUTE BETWEEN INDIA
AND PAKISTAN
(a). Overview
The boundary between India and
Pakistan is the most contentious in the globe along their western boundaries.
Several wars have been sparked by Sir Cyril Radcliffe's legacy on this border.
Gujarat and Sindh are divided by Sir Creek, which is a contentious boundary in
southwest India. Pakistani jets violating Indian airspace were discovered in
this region barely one month after the Kargil War, and Indian Air Force Mig 21s
shot down a Pakistani plane in the Rann of Kutch, killing 16 Pakistani soldiers
and inflaming tensions between the two countries even more in 1999.
Negotiators and political officials
from both countries spend much of their time focusing on settling the Kashmir
conflict and Siachen Glacier confrontations, which have also triggered other
problems between the two countries (such as the Sir Creek in Gujarat). In the
Indus Delta's deserted marsh, there is an unnamed stream that appears like a river
but is shallower. This stream is called a "mountain stream." India
and Pakistan are at conflict for control of this area.
Kutch and Sindh provinces are
separated by Sir Creek on the western side of the Rann of Kutch, which runs
into the Arabian Sea, also known as Ban Ganga. Geographically speaking, Sir
Creek on the Indian side is one of six creeks in the area, the others being
Vian Wari Creek (16 kilometers southeast of Sir Creek), Pir Savai Creek (4
kilometers east), Pabevari Creek (34.5 kilometers east), Padala Creek (16
kilometers southeast of Sir Creek), and Kori Creek (34 kilometers east).
Immediately to the south of Sir Creek, in what is unquestionably Indian land is
a marshy wetland in the far west with no physical limits or fences, is the most
contentious among the other creeks.
There has been a long-lasting dispute
among Pakistan and India about a maritime boundary in Sir Creek region, that
dates back to pre-independence times. In 1908, ruler of Sindh and Rao Maharaja
of Kutch had their first boundary conflicts. The Bombay Presidency used to rule
over the whole province of Bombay, hence this conflict only reached the Bombay
Presidency for resolving the dispute. The Bombay Presidency conducted an
inquiry in 1911, and a Dispute Settlement Decree was issued in 1914 to resolve
the issue.
For the next 40-50 years, everything
stayed loose. Now Sindh was a part of Pakistan in 1947, while Gujarat was
already a part of Indian Union through reorganization of the states. When the
two countries went to war in 1960, the conflict resurfaced. Half of the Rann is
claimed by Pakistan, while India claims the border traverses just a portion of
the Rann's northerly boundary. With Harold Wilson's suggestion, both parties
reached a settlement after the conflict through the Indo-Pakistani western
boundary case tribunal.
The parts of Rann were awarded to
India and Pakistan on February 19, 1968, by the Tribunal. Pakistan was not
pleased with this decision Sir Creek's eastern bank is now part of Sindh
Province, according to Pakistani claims. Because Pakistan has claimed these
items based on a 1914 Sindh Government Decree with inconsistent assertions in
paragraphs 9 and 10, this debate is at its core.
As per Paragraph 9 and According to
Pakistani claims, the boundary between Kutch and Sindh runs east of Sir Creek.
Most of the year, Sir Creek is navigable, according to paragraph 10. The
Thalweg principle is used in India.
International institutions also
supported India's view on the matter. Pakistan would be the sole country to
suffer from this principle's shift of a few kilometers and the subsequent
encroachment of Indian jurisdiction into Pakistan's EEZ by thousands of
kilometers. The map was released in 1925 with the positioning of central sewer
chimneys based on the Thalweg principle. A tidal estuary is defined as one
where the tides come in and go out; Pakistan does not contest the 1925 map. On
the other hand, India claims that Sir Creek is passable at high tide and that
the Thalweg principle applies to tidal water.
Sir Creek's path altered dramatically
throughout time. Between 1997 and 2012, the two nations held 12 rounds of
negotiations to try to resolve their differences, but no deal was ever
achieved. They resolved to resolve their differences by issuing an investigation-based
common map during the fourth round of discussions in 2008. Although efforts to
find a solution to the problem were put on hold in 2008 due to the Mumbai
terrorist attacks.
India’s point of view was that, the
marine border should be established first. As a result of Pakistan's vehement
opposition, the idea of a border was never really considered. India also
opposed Pakistan's attempt to incorporate the subject under the international
arbitration agreement, which was rejected. Without the assistance of outside
parties, the issue was resolved bilaterally. The region's fisheries are more
important than its strategic or military relevance. It is common for boats from
India and Pakistan to violate each other's waters, but the United Nations
recommends that boats be freed after a minimal term for such infractions, but
the fisherman end up in jail on both sides, which also serves as a cause of
disagreement between the two countries.
The area's potential economic worth
is also a crucial factor. A country's Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) has rich
shale gas and hydrocarbons, which can be accessed under UNCLOS. There are other
areas like Harami Nala in this region where illegal drug trade and terrorist
attacks might take place.
(b). Resolution 1192 of 1914 -Kutch's Maharao (ruler) claimed in
1907-1908 that Sindh was at east of "Green Line", and so portion of
Sindh belonged to Kutch. Logging in Sindh, which was British territory in 1907,
used Kutch loggers. The Maharao of Kutch was summoned by the Sindh Commissioner
and given an opportunity to explain himself by the Bombay administration.
Responding to this, the Maharao of Kutch claimed that the eastern bank of Sir
Creek was one of his region’s territories. he asserted. The Bombay
administration (Sindh is its administrative arm) issued a request or a proposal
to Maharao of Kutch suggesting that Bombay presidency which was willing to
accept border along eastern bank of Sir Creek from starting to point.
Similarly, the delegates recommended that borders follow the east-west line
from the top of Sir Creek until it reaches the Sindh-Pakistan border. This
suggestion was approved by the Maharao of Kutch at the time. Letter was sent by
the Secretary of the Bombay presidency with this proposition. This was done so
as to certify Maharao of Kutch's commitment to have the boundary between Kutch
and Sindh rectified.[6]
"The government then concluded
that the boundary between Kutch and Sindh should be the green line on the
attached map drawn from the Sir Creek mouth to the head of Sir Creek, where it
joins the blue dotted line; from there it should follow the blue dotted line
east until it reaches the Sindh border shown in purple on the resolution map,
and His Highness the Rao's son has now expressed his willingness to accept this
compromise." A letter from Bombay presidency recommending that boundary be
redrawn has been approved by the Indian government.[7]
The agreement was then ratified by the Bombay government on February 24, 1914,
through Resolution 1192, which referred to Letter No. 5543 and Map B-44,
respectively.
(c). Rann of Kutch Arbitration- After India and Pakistan got
independence and their self-ruled government from the British in 1947, a
territorial dispute erupted over the Rann of Kutch Along the 24th parallel.[8]
For almost a decade and a half, the two countries engaged in a contentious
conversation. India accused Pakistani forces of crossing the 24th Parallel Line
without permission early in 1965. In April 1965, Pakistani soldiers attacked
Indian outposts and withdrew them. As a result of these engagements, the two
countries sent a large number of troops to Rann. On June 30, 1965, the two
countries agreed to a truce, ending the war that had raged for over two years.
An arbitration agreement has been reached
as well. The tribunal was established as a result of the agreement.
Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon selected Gunner Lagergren (a Swedish judge) to
serve as the tribunal's chairman and another non-state member was nominated by
both India and Pakistan.[9] As
per this connection, a delegation from Delhi visited Islamabad so as to check
maps and other associated papers.[10]
On February 19, 1968, the international tribunal granted India and, Pakistan
the parts of the disputed region of Rann of Kutch, following thorough analysis
of the statements and point of views given by both nations into the dispute.[11]
Even though Pakistan had not made a formal claim to the Nagar Parker region,
the court determined that Pakistani territory encircled it. Besides this,
Pakistan has been given responsibility over Dhara Banni and Chhad Bet also.
Tribunal granted India the remaining 90% of Rann of Kutch's territory based on
India's proof that Britain had given up Rann's rights.[12]
By virtue of this settlement, Kutch's territorial issue over the Rann of Kutch
has been resolved.
(d). Legal aspects-
Case Study 1: Maritime Boundary
Dispute between Suriname and Guyana
Corentyne River, which flows north
into the Atlantic Ocean and divides Suriname and Guyana, is one of several
rivers. These nations are located on the northeaster coast of South America. As
a boundary between the two states, which share a coastline, the Corentyne River
is used.[13] The
Corentyne was a point of controversy when it came to river and maritime
boundaries. As with Sir Creek, the conclusion of this problem has major
consequences.
British colonization occurred in both
Suriname and Guyana. Suriname became independent from the Netherlands in 1975,
whereas Guyana became independent from the United Kingdom in 1966. As far back
as 1936, when both the Netherlands and the United Kingdom set up a commission
to determine their respective maritime boundaries, the Dutch-British maritime
border dispute has been raging. It was agreed that the river's water was under
Dutch control, and the west bank was considered a boundary. However, the Dutch
government recognized the thalweg principle to be used for the southern
boundary of the Corentyne River in 1962.[14]
Upon obtaining independence, Suriname and Guyana each maintained that the Corentyne
River's thalweg should serve as the border between their respective countries.
As of September 17th, 2007, dispute was finally settled in 1982. Since the land
boundary ceased on the western side of the river, it was determined that the
thalweg concept did not apply towards Guyana.[15]
The panel ruled that the maritime boundary between Suriname and the Guyana must
be redrawn in order for the country to reach the river by boat.[16]
Furthermore, both Guyana and Suriname ratified the United Nations Convention on
the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) on July 31, 1996, and on July 9, 1998,
respectively. As a result, they are obligated to adhere to the agreement's
stipulations as well as[17]
The Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species' (CITES) Exclusive
economic zones and Continental Shelf borders, as well as other relevant
restrictions. Sir Creek's dispute might be handled by drawing on the
Guyana-Suriname disagreement as a model. Both Pakistan and India have signed
the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), much like Guyana and Suriname
have. Since Pakistan and India are disputing the ownership of Sir Creek, where
the involvement of the international tribunal was considered to be necessary.
Because Pakistan and India appear to be in agreement on the western land
terminus, a tribunal may simply decide its status as was done in the case study
of Suriname and Guyana. It will be easier for the tribunal to show that
Pakistan and India's claims are valid with this information. The Sir Creek
dispute between Pakistan and India, which involves the nations of Guyana and
Suriname, is a useful example to examine while addressing sea boundary
problems.[18]
DEVELOPING RELATIONS BETWEEN INDIA
AND BANGLADESH
The India-Bangladesh maritime
connectivity has been given a huge boost with the successful trial of the
trans-shipment of products to India’s north-eastern States via the Chittagong
port. The move is intended to boost the bilateral as well as the economic
connections between the two countries.
The beginning of this trans-shipment
facility is a telling example of the cooperative mentality that characterizes
the bilateral relationship. The step corresponds the two nations’ ambition to
improve the bilateral connectivity and establish a mutually-beneficial
partnership for the shared good of the people living across the border.
Access to Chittagong and Mongla ports
has been a great move as it will not only allow the region to be relieved of
its land-locked state but it will also add an additional connection route.
Besides these, the expectation is that it will also enhance development and
boost trade since the facility is projected to reduce time and distance
greatly, making trade viable.
Bangladesh is expected to reap some
benefit. Observers consider that the facility will contribute to increasing
corporate services and revenue generating in the country. It is intended to aid
Bangladesh in job-creation and investment in the logistical sector since
Bangladeshi vessels and trucks would be utilized to convey the Indian goods.
Indian freight also has to pay appropriate taxes to use the facility in
Bangladesh.
In 2015, India and Bangladesh have
struck a coastal shipping agreement. Also, attempts have been undertaken to
expand the use of rivers for trade and connection. India is helping Bangladesh
in strengthening the navigability of the rivers by assisting in the dredging of
its waterways in specified lengths. There is already a Protocol on Inland Water
Trade and Transit and a new port of call and routes has been added.
The India-Bangladesh connectivity is
not only focused at increasing the movement of products and people bilaterally
but also has a vision for deepening sub-regional collaboration, primarily
Bangladesh, Bhutan, India and Nepal (BBIN) quadrilateral cooperation. The
recently built port at Jogikhopa is designed to promote inland water access to
Bhutan.
In this complicated sub-regional
geo-politics, India and Bangladesh give a unique paradigm of good-neighbourly
relationship, grounded in the idea of peaceful co-existence and sharing a
thriving neighborhood by growing together hand-in-hand.
DEVELOPING RELATIONS BETWEEN INDIA
AND PAKISTAN
UNCLOS, adopted in 1982, intends to
broaden maritime governments' authority over waters contiguous to their own.
EEZ and continental shelf delineation is described in UNCLOS Articles 74 and
83. Suriname-Guyana maritime dispute settlement is an example that might be
used to replicate the Sir Creek boundary issue. Signatories to the UN
Convention on the Law of the Sea, Pakistan and India should have a tribunal
established up to look into their claims to Sir Creek. Once the status of
Guyana and Suriname's land terminal is established, the court must then
determine whether it is Thalweg (India's claim) or Sir Creek (Pakistan's claim),
as was done in that case. By delineating the EEZ and continental shelf of both
nations through this procedure, the maritime boundaries of the two countries
will also be specified, thereby settling the Sir Creek boundary issue.
Pakistan and India's perceptions on
the Agha's delimitation of the maritime border must be taken into account
before submitting the third proposal. Approaching the water from a legal and
technological perspective settle the maritime border problem between nearby
nations in a different way. Pakistan and India's coasts are highlighted with
two uncontested spots. The EEZ limit is set at a point 200 nautical miles away
from the previously recorded shore locations of the continent in question. The
mouth of Sir Creek should then be demarcated with a location equidistant from
India's (Point-1) and Pakistan's (Point-K) claims, as a solution that does not
exclude future claims. Pakistan and India's maritime boundary will be
represented on the map by a line connecting these two sites.
[1] Dispute Concerning Delimitation of
the Maritime Boundary between Bangladesh and Myanmar in the Bay of Bengal
(Bangladesh/Myanmar) Declaration of Wolfrum, 2
.
[2] CLCS, Scientific and Technical
Guidelines, adopted 13 May 1999, CLCS/11, s 2.2.1
accessed
8 November 2015.
[3] Bay of Bengal Maritime Boundary
Arbitration (n 3) 131 [438].
[4] Kunoy B, A Geometric Variable
Scope of Delimitations: The Impact of Geological and Geomorphological Title to
the Outer Continental Shelf (Austrian Rev Intl & Eur L 2006)
[5] Colson D, The Delimitation of the
Outer Continental Shelf between Neighboring States (2003); kunov bjorn, The Rise of the Sun: Legal Arguments
in Outer Continental Margin Delimitation (Netherlands international law review
2006)
[6] Secretary of the Bombay Government
Letter #5543 dated September 20, 1913
[7] Foreign Department Government of
India Letter #3583-I. A dated November 11, 1913. The letter
was
quoted in the arbitration awards:
“I
am directed to acknowledge the receipt of your Letter #5543, dated the 20th
September 1913,
regarding
the proposed rectification of the boundary between Sindh and Kutch State.”
“The
Government of India observed with satisfaction that the dispute between the
Sindh authorities
and
the Kutch Darbar has been settled by a compromise agreeable to both parties,
and are pleased to accord
their
sanction to the rectification of the boundary line proposed in para 9 and 10 of
your letter.”
[8]Copeland Carla S, The Use of
Arbitration to Settle Territorial Dispute, vol 67 (Fordham law review 1999).
[9] khan Rashid Ahmad, Sir Creek
[10] Copeland Carla S, The Use of
Arbitration to Settle Territorial Dispute, vol 67 (Fordham law review 1999).
[11] Shah Sikander Ahmad, River
Boundary Delimitation
[12]Copeland Carla S, The Use of
Arbitration to Settle Territorial Dispute, vol 67 (Fordham law review 1999).
[13] Arbitration (Guyana. V. Suriname),
Award of the Arbitral Tribunal, In the Matter of an Arbitration
between:
Guyana- and -Suriname,” (The Hague, 17 September 2007), 27.
[14] Sikander, “River Boundary
Delimitation,” 390
[15] Delimitation of the territorial
sea between States with opposite or adjacent coasts: “Where the coasts
of
two States are opposite or adjacent to each other, neither of the two States is
entitled, failing agreement
between
them to the contrary, to extend its territorial sea beyond the median line
every point of which is
equidistant
from the nearest points on the baselines from which the breadth of the
territorial seas of each of
the
two States is measured. The above provision does not apply, however, where it
is necessary by reason
of
historic title or other special circumstances to delimit the territorial seas
of the two States in a way which
is
at variance therewith.”
[16] Arbitration (Guyana. V. Suriname),
97
[17] Article 74 (1) states,
“Delimitation of the exclusive economic zone between States with opposite or
adjacent
coasts: The delimitation of the exclusive economic zone between States with
opposite or adjacent
coasts
shall be affected by agreement on the basis of international law, as referred
to in Article 38 of the
Statute
of the International Court of Justice, in order to achieve an equitable
solution.”
Article
83 (1) states, “Delimitation of the continental shelf between States with
opposite or adjacent
coasts:
The delimitation of the continental shelf between States with opposite or
adjacent coasts shall be
effected
by agreement on the basis of international law, as referred to in Article 38 of
the Statute of the
International
Court of Justice, in order to achieve an equitable solution.”
[18] Kaieteur News, Enhanced
Guyana/Suriname relations fuelled by common goals – Luncheon,
(February
25, 2012), Accessed May 15, 2012,
http://www.kaieteurnewsonline.com/2012/02/25/enhancedguyanasuriname-relations-fuelled-by-common-goals-luncheon/