Sie befinden sich hier: Publikationen Archiv World Court Digest
II. | Substantive International Law - Second Partv |
1. | TERRITORY OF STATES |
1.2. | Boundaries |
1.2.2. | Maritime Boundaries |
¤
Case Concerning Maritime
Delimitation and Territorial
Question between Qatar and
Bahrain (Qatar v. Bahrain)
Judgment of 16 March 2001
[pp. 91-92] 169. It should be kept
in mind that the concept of "single maritime boundary"
may encompass a number of functions. In the present
case the single maritime boundary will be the result
of the delimitation of various jurisdictions. In the
southern part of the delimitation area, which is situated
where the coasts of the Parties are opposite to each
other, the distance between these coasts is nowhere
more than 24 nautical miles. The boundary the Court
is expected to draw will, therefore, delimit exclusively
their territorial seas and, consequently, an area over
which they enjoy territorial sovereignty.
170. More to the north, however, where
the coasts of the two States are no longer opposite
to each other but are rather comparable to adjacent
coasts, the delimitation to be carried out will be
one between the continental shelf and exclusive economic
zone belonging to each of the Parties, areas in which
States have only sovereign rights and functional jurisdiction.
Thus both Parties have differentiated between a southern
and a northern sector.
[pp. 93-94] 173. The Court observes that the concept of a single maritime boundary does not stem from multilateral treaty law but from State practice, and that it finds its explanation in the wish of States to establish one uninterrupted boundary line delimiting the various - partially coincident - zones of maritime jurisdiction appertaining to them. In the case of coincident jurisdictional zones, the determination of a single boundary for the different objects of delimitation
"can only be carried out by the application of a criterion, or combination of criteria, which does not give preferential treatment to one of these ... objects to the detriment of the other, and at the same time is such as to be equally suitable to the division of either of them",
as was stated by the Chamber of the Court
in the Gulf of Maine case (I.C.J. Reports
1984, p. 327, para. 194). In that case, the Chamber
was asked to draw a single line which would delimit
both the continental shelf and the superjacent water
column.
174. Delimitation of territorial seas does
not present comparable problems, since the rights of
the coastal State in the area concerned are not functional
but territorial, and entail sovereignty over the sea-bed
and the superjacent waters and air column. Therefore,
when carrying out that part of its task, the Court
has to apply first and foremost the principles and
rules of international customary law which refer to
the delimitation of the territorial sea, while taking
into account that its ultimate task is to draw a single
maritime boundary that serves other purposes as well.
175. The Parties agree that the provisions
of Article 15 of the 1982 Convention on the Law of
the Sea, headed "Delimitation of the territorial sea
between States with opposite or adjacent coasts", are
part of customary law. This Article provides:
"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 point 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."
176. Article 15 of the 1982 Convention is virtually identical to Article 12, paragraph 1, of the 1958 Convention on the Territorial Sea and the Contiguous Zone, and is to be regarded as having a customary character. It is often referred to as the "equidistance/special circumstances" rule. The most logical and widely practised approach is first to draw provisionally an equidistance line and then to consider whether that line must be adjusted in the light of the existence of special circumstances. Once it has delimited the territorial seas belonging to the Parties, the Court will determine the rules and principles of customary law to be applied to the delimitation of the Parties' continental shelves and their exclusive economic zones or fishery zones. The Court will further decide whether the method to be chosen for this delimitation differs from or is similar to the approach just outlined.
177. The equidistance line is the 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. It can only be drawn when the baselines are known. Neither of the Parties has as yet specified the baselines which are to be used for the determination of the breadth of the territorial sea, nor have they produced official maps or charts which reflect such baselines. Only during the present proceedings have they provided the Court with approximate basepoints which in their view could be used by the Court for the determination of the maritime boundary.