The Evolution and Convergence of Maritime Delimitation: From ‘Equidistance’ to ‘Equitable Equidistance’
Deniz Alanlarının Sınırlanmasının Evrimi ve Yakınlaşması: ‘Eşit Uzaklık’tan ‘Hakça Eşit Uzaklık’a
Deniz TEKİN APAYDIN
Maritime delimitation is a serious and sensitive issue due to its sovereignty related implications, therefore errors and uncertainties are best avoided. The conventional law -the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea of 1982- on the other hand is not well-equipped to respond those sensitivities, since it lacks to prescribe any specific method of delimitation for continental shelf and exclusive economic zone. Thus it was left to judicial authorities to articulate a formula that is capable of ensuring a level of predictability, which also needs to present the flexibility to tackle the challenges posed by geographical peculiarities. In the first delimitation case on continental shelf, the ICJ introduced ‘equitable principles’ to ensure flexibility and fairness. Since then the concept became the centre of legal debates regarding its meaning for maritime delimitation, and its effect on the ‘equidistance principle’ of the 1958 Geneva Conventions. The evolving case-law, which presented divergent views on these questions in the past, seems to achieve some degree of consistency especially over the last decade. This paper explores the process and identifies current convergence points with some critical analysis on the subject.
Maritime Delimitation, Continental Shelf, Exclusive Economic Zone, Equitable Principles, Equidistance Rule.
Deniz alanlarının sınırlandırılması egemenlik ile ilgili sonuçları olması nedeniyle ciddi ve hassas bir konudur ve bu nedenle hatalardan ve belirsizliklerden kaçınılması gerekir. Öte yandan, anlaşma hukuku -1982 Birleşmiş Milletler Deniz Hukuku Sözleşmesi- kıta sahanlığı ve münhasır ekonomik bölge sınırlandırmalarına ilişkin belirli bir metod öngörmediği için bu hassasiyetlere cevap verebilme noktasında yeterli değildir. Bu sebeple belirli bir seviyede öngörülebilirlik ihtiva eden ve aynı zamanda sıradışı coğrafi özellikler nedeniyle ortaya çıkabilecek zorluklarla da başedebilme esnekliği olan bir formül geliştirme işi yargı organlarına bırakılmıştır. Uluslararası Adalet Divanı kıta sahanlığı sınırlandırılmasına ilişkin ilk davasında esneklik ve hakkaniyet sağlamak için ‘hakça ilkeler’ kavramını ortaya atmıştır. O zamandan beri bu kavram deniz alanlarının sınırlandırılması açısından anlamı ve 1958 Cenevre Sözleşmeleri’nin getirdiği ‘eşit uzaklık ilkesi’ üzerindeki etkisi bağlamında hukuki tartışmaların odağı haline gelmiştir. Geçmişte bu konular hakkında birbirinden farklı görüşler ortaya koymuş olan içtihat hukuku, özellikle son on yılda belirli bir derecede tutarlılığa kavuşmuş görünmektedir. Bu çalışma, sözü edilen süreci ele alıp mevcut yakınlaşma noktalarını belirler ve bu esnada konuya ilişkin bazı çözümsel analizlerde bulunur.
Deniz Alanlarının Sınırlandırılması, Kıta Sahanlığı, Münhasır Ekonomik Bölge, Hakça İlkeler, Eşit Uzaklık İlkesi.
INTRODUCTION
The law of the sea is presumably one of the most reconcilable areas of international law. However, it is not shorn of some controversial issues, one of which is the delimitation of maritime zones. In the landmark ruling of the North Sea Continental Shelf Cases of 1969, the ICJ defined maritime delimitation as a "process which involves establishing the boundaries of an area already, in principle, appertaining to the coastal State and not the determination de novo of such an area".1 It is a process which, by nature, requires the involvement of at least two States with competing or overlapping claims on a certain sea zone. Therefore, maritime delimitation is international by nature.2 Maritime delimitation is not a minor issue. The drawn boundaries determine the reach of the States involved to the resources on the area allocated to them. Where the demarcation involves territorial seas, it establishes the boundaries of the parties, as well as often determining the boundaries of the high seas, which concerns all the States. This also has strong sovereignty related implications, such as the verification of jurisdictional competences. It is therefore crucial to have clear and widely-accepted rules, which are also able to counterchallenge the unique natural peculiarities of each case.
The history of international maritime delimitation disputes demonstrate that competing maritime zone claims has been a battlefield for the rivalling concepts of 'equidistance' and 'special circumstances'. These were first codified by the 1958 Geneva Convention on Territorial Sea and Contiguous Zone (hereinafter referred as the 'CTSCZ') and the 1958 Geneva Convention on the Continental Shelf (hereinafter referred as the 'CCS'). The later development of law of the sea, with the substantial effect of case-law, led to the emergence of a new concept in delimitation: 'equitable principles'. The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (hereinafter referred as the UNCLOS) of 1982, while keeping the 'equidistance/special circumstances' formula for delimitation of territorial seas, introduced an overriding requirement of 'reaching an equitable solution' in delimitation of continental shelf (hereinafter referred as 'CS') and exclusive economic zone (hereinafter referred as 'EEZ'). This new criterion brought a new dimension to the battle, and perhaps further complicated the rules on delimitation.
The fact that the method to be employed for the delimitation of territorial sea zones, which was first codified by the CTSCZ of 1958, is retained in the UNCLOS demonstrate that it is relatively more consistent and, thus, less controversial. For that reason this study will mainly focus on delimitation of CS and EEZ, leaving aside the territorial sea.
