(srfc), - office of legal affairslegal.un.org/avl/studymaterials/rcil-africa/2016/book3_3.pdf ·...
TRANSCRIPT
LAW OF THE SEA PROFESSOR NILUFER ORAL
Outline
Legal instruments and documents 1. United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, 1982
For text, see The Law of the Sea, 1997 (United Nations Publication, Sales No. E.97.V.10) pp. 1-207
2. Agreement Relating to the Implementation of Part XI of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea of 10 December 1982, 1994 For text, see The Law of the Sea, 1997 (United Nations Publication, Sales No. E.97.V.10) pp. 208-231
3. Agreement for the Implementation of the Provisions of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea of 10 December 1982 relating to the Conservation and Management of Straddling Fish Stocks and Highly Migratory Fish Stocks (Straddling Fish Stocks Agreement), 1995
Case Law 4.
Request for an Advisory Opinion Submitted by the Sub-Regional Fisheries Commission
(SRFC), Advisory Opinion of 2 April 2015, International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, pp.14-20, 22-23, 31-42, 50-54; paras. 37-63, 70-79 (Jurisdiction), 109-140 (Flag State obligations), 141-150 (State responsibility and liability), 182-201(Coastal State responsibility)
5. The M/V “Virginia G.” Case (Panama/Guinea-Bissau), Judgment of 14 April 2014, International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, pp. 25-27, 51-68; paras. 55-63 (Background), 161-236 (Bunkering in the EEZ)
6. Maritime Delimitation in the Black Sea (Romania v. Ukraine), Judgment, I.C.J.
Reports 2009, pp. 101-103, 110-130; paras. 115-122, 150-204, 210-218
7. Dispute concerning delimitation of the maritime boundary between Bangladesh and
Myanmar in the Bay of Bengal (Bangladesh/Myanmar), Judgment of 14 March 2012, International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, pp. 103-115, 131-143, paras. 341-394, 450-499
Legal writings Required readings 8. Tim Stephens, “ITLOS Advisory Opinion: Coastal and Flag State Duties to Ensure
Sustainable Fisheries Management,” Available at http://www.asil.org/insights/volume/19/issue/8/itlos-advisory-opinion-coastal-and-flag-state-duties-ensure
9. Nilufer Oral, “Transit Passage Rights in the Strait of Hormuz and Iran’s Threats to
Block the Passage of Oil Tankers,” available at https://www.asil.org/insights/volume/16/issue/16/transit-passage-rights-strait-hormuz-and-iran%E2%80%99s-threats-block-passage
10. Ashley Roach, “China’s Shifting Sands,” available at https://www.asil.org/insights/volume/19/issue/15/chinas-shifting-sands-spratlys
Suggested readings (not reproduced)
11. Tullio Treves, “Historical Treatment of the Law of the Sea”, The Oxford Manual of
the Law of the Sea, Donald R. Rothwell, Alex G Oude Elferink, Karen N. Scott & Tim Stephens (eds.), Oxford University Press, 2015, pp. 1-23
12. Bernard H Oxman, “Courts and Tribunals: The ICJ, ITLOS, And Arbitral Tribunals”, The Oxford Manual of the Law of the Sea, Donald R. Rothwell, Alex G Oude Elferink, Karen N. Scott & Tim Stephens (eds.), Oxford University Press, 2015, pp. 395-415
13. Yoshifumi Tanaka, “Navigational Rights and Freedoms”, The Oxford Manual of the
Law of the Sea, Donald R. Rothwell, Alex G Oude Elferink, Karen N. Scott & Tim Stephens (eds.), Oxford University Press, 2015, pp. 536-558
14. Moritaka Hayashi, “The 1995 UN Fish Stocks Agreement And the Law of the Sea”, Order for the Oceans at the Turn of the Century, Davor Vidas & Willy Ostreng (eds.), Kluwer Law International, 1999, pp. 37-53
15. Gudmumdur Eiriksson “The Bay of Bengal Case before the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea”, Law of the Sea, From Grotius to the International Tribunal for
the Law of the Sea, Liber Amicorum Judge Hugo Caminos, Lilian del Castillo (ed.), Brill Nijhoff, 2015, pp. 512-528
16. Jon Van Dyke and Sherry Broder, “Particularly Sensitive Areas-Protecting the Marine Environment in the Territorial Seas and Exclusive Economic Zones”, Denver Journal
of International Law and Policy, Vol. 40, 2011-2012, pp. 472-481
Agreement for the Implementation of the Provisions of The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea Of 10 December 1982 relating to the Conservation and
Management of Straddling Fish Stocks and Highly Migratory Fish Stocks, 1995
UNTS, vol. 2167, p. 88
International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea
Request for an Advisory Opinion Submitted by the Sub-Regional
Fisheries Commission (SRFC)
Advisory Opinion of 2 April 2015
ITLOS Reports, vol. 15 (2015) [forthcoming], pp.14-20, 22-23, 31-42, 50-54; paras. 37-63, 70-79, 109-140, 141-150, 182-201
INTE
RN
ATI
ON
AL
TRIB
UN
AL
FOR
TH
E LA
W O
F TH
E SE
A
YE
AR
201
5
2 A
pril
2015
List
of c
ases
: N
o. 2
1
REQ
UES
T FO
R A
N A
DVI
SOR
Y O
PIN
ION
SU
BM
ITTE
D B
Y TH
E SU
B-R
EGIO
NA
L FI
SHER
IES
CO
MM
ISSI
ON
(SR
FC)
(Req
uest
for A
dvis
ory
Opi
nion
sub
mitt
ed to
the
Trib
unal
)
AD
VISO
RY
OPI
NIO
N
14
orga
niza
tions
whi
ch h
ad p
artic
ipat
ed in
the
oral
pro
ceed
ings
to s
ubm
it co
mm
ents
on
thos
e do
cum
ents
by
3 N
ovem
ber 2
014.
35.
In
an
elec
troni
c co
mm
unic
atio
n da
ted
3 N
ovem
ber 2
014,
the
SR
FC re
ques
ted
an e
xten
sion
of t
he ti
me-
limit
for t
he s
ubm
issi
on o
f its
com
men
ts o
n th
e ad
ditio
nal
docu
men
ts s
ubm
itted
by
the
Eur
opea
n U
nion
. By
lette
r dat
ed 4
Nov
embe
r 201
4, th
e
Reg
istra
r inf
orm
ed th
e S
RFC
that
the
Pre
side
nt h
ad a
gree
d to
an
exte
nsio
n of
the
time-
limit
to 5
Nov
embe
r 201
4. T
he S
tate
s P
artie
s an
d th
e in
terg
over
nmen
tal
orga
niza
tions
whi
ch h
ad p
artic
ipat
ed in
the
oral
pro
ceed
ings
wer
e in
form
ed
acco
rdin
gly.
The
SR
FC s
ubm
itted
com
men
ts o
n th
e ad
ditio
nal d
ocum
ents
by
lette
r
date
d 6
Nov
embe
r 201
4, th
e fil
ing
of w
hich
was
acc
epte
d by
dec
isio
n of
the
Pre
side
nt. B
y le
tter d
ated
11
Nov
embe
r 201
4, th
e R
egis
trar t
rans
mitt
ed th
ese
com
men
ts to
the
parti
cipa
nts
in th
e or
al p
roce
edin
gs. B
y le
tter d
ated
13
Nov
embe
r
2014
, the
Reg
istra
r, at
the
requ
est o
f the
Pre
side
nt, i
nfor
med
the
SR
FC th
at th
e
com
men
ts c
onta
ined
in it
s le
tter d
ated
6 N
ovem
ber 2
014
wou
ld b
e co
nsid
ered
by
the
Trib
unal
to th
e ex
tent
that
they
rela
ted
to th
e R
eque
st a
s su
bmitt
ed to
it b
y th
e S
RFC
on 2
8 M
arch
201
3.
36.
Pre
side
nt Y
anai
, who
se te
rm o
f offi
ce a
s P
resi
dent
exp
ired
on 3
0 S
epte
mbe
r
2014
, con
tinue
d to
pre
side
ove
r the
Trib
unal
in th
e pr
esen
t cas
e un
til c
ompl
etio
n,
purs
uant
to a
rticl
e 16
, par
agra
ph 2
, of t
he R
ules
. In
acco
rdan
ce w
ith a
rticl
e 17
of t
he
Rul
es, J
udge
s N
elso
n an
d Tü
rk, w
hose
term
of o
ffice
exp
ired
on 3
0 S
epte
mbe
r 201
4,
havi
ng p
artic
ipat
ed in
the
mee
ting
men
tione
d in
arti
cle
68 o
f the
Rul
es, c
ontin
ued
to
sit i
n th
e ca
se u
ntil
its c
ompl
etio
n.
II.
Juris
dict
ion
37.
The
Trib
unal
will
first
con
side
r w
heth
er it
has
juris
dict
ion
to g
ive
the
advi
sory
opin
ion
requ
este
d by
the
SR
FC.
15
38.
The
Trib
unal
wis
hes
to d
raw
atte
ntio
n to
arti
cles
16
and
21 o
f the
Sta
tute
and
artic
le 1
38 o
f the
Rul
es w
ith re
gard
to th
e ju
risdi
ctio
n of
the
Trib
unal
to d
eliv
er
advi
sory
opi
nion
s. A
rticl
e 16
of t
he S
tatu
te re
ads
as fo
llow
s:
The
Trib
unal
sha
ll fra
me
rule
s fo
r car
ryin
g ou
t its
func
tions
. In
parti
cula
r it
shal
l lay
dow
n ru
les
of p
roce
dure
.
Arti
cle
21 o
f the
Sta
tute
read
s:
The
juris
dict
ion
of th
e Tr
ibun
al c
ompr
ises
all
disp
utes
and
all
appl
icat
ions
su
bmitt
ed
to
it in
ac
cord
ance
w
ith
this
C
onve
ntio
n an
d al
l m
atte
rs
spec
ifica
lly p
rovi
ded
for i
n an
y ot
her a
gree
men
t whi
ch c
onfe
rs ju
risdi
ctio
n on
the
Trib
unal
.
Arti
cle
138
of th
e R
ules
read
s:
1 .
The
Trib
unal
may
giv
e an
adv
isor
y op
inio
n on
a le
gal q
uest
ion
if an
in
tern
atio
nal
agre
emen
t re
late
d to
th
e pu
rpos
es
of
the
Con
vent
ion
spec
ifica
lly p
rovi
des
for
the
subm
issi
on t
o th
e Tr
ibun
al o
f a
requ
est
for
such
an
opin
ion.
2.
A
req
uest
for
an a
dvis
ory
opin
ion
shal
l be
trans
mitt
ed to
the
Trib
unal
by
wha
teve
r bod
y is
aut
horiz
ed b
y or
in a
ccor
danc
e w
ith th
e ag
reem
ent t
o m
ake
the
requ
est t
o th
e Tr
ibun
al.
3.
The
Trib
unal
sha
ll ap
ply
mut
atis
mut
andi
s ar
ticle
s 13
0 to
137
.
39.
Whi
le s
ome
parti
cipa
nts
have
arg
ued
in fa
vour
of t
he ju
risdi
ctio
n of
the
Trib
unal
to e
nter
tain
the
Req
uest
, oth
er p
artic
ipan
ts h
ave
cont
ende
d th
at th
e
Trib
unal
is n
ot c
ompe
tent
to e
nter
tain
the
Req
uest
. The
Trib
unal
will
proc
eed
to
exam
ine
thes
e ar
gum
ents
.
40.
The
mai
n ar
gum
ents
aga
inst
the
advi
sory
juris
dict
ion
of th
e Tr
ibun
al a
re th
at
the
Con
vent
ion
mak
es n
o re
fere
nce,
exp
ress
or i
mpl
ied,
to a
dvis
ory
opin
ions
by
the
full
Trib
unal
and
that
if th
e Tr
ibun
al w
ere
to e
xerc
ise
advi
sory
juris
dict
ion,
it w
ould
be
actin
gul
tra v
ires
unde
r the
Con
vent
ion.
41.
It ha
s al
so b
een
cont
ende
d th
at th
e Tr
ibun
al h
as n
o im
plie
d po
wer
s to
ser
ve
as a
n in
depe
nden
t sou
rce
of a
utho
rity
to c
onfe
r upo
n its
elf a
n ad
viso
ry ju
risdi
ctio
n
that
it d
oes
not o
ther
wis
e po
sses
s.
16
42.
It ha
s be
en a
rgue
d th
at a
rticl
e 13
8 of
the
Rul
es c
anno
t ser
ve a
s a
basi
s fo
r
the
exer
cise
of a
ny ju
risdi
ctio
n to
giv
e ad
viso
ry o
pini
ons
sinc
e th
e R
ules
of t
he
Trib
unal
, bei
ng p
roce
dura
l pro
visi
ons,
“can
not o
verr
ide”
the
prov
isio
ns o
f the
Con
vent
ion.
43.
It ha
s be
en c
onte
nded
that
arti
cle
21 o
f the
Sta
tute
is in
tend
ed to
enc
apsu
late
the
cont
entio
us ju
risdi
ctio
n of
the
Trib
unal
, whi
ch is
set
out
mor
e fu
lly in
the
Con
vent
ion,
in p
artic
ular
arti
cle
288
ther
eof.
Acc
ordi
ngly
, it h
as b
een
argu
ed th
at
artic
le 2
1 of
the
Sta
tute
has
to b
e in
terp
rete
d co
nsis
tent
ly w
ith a
rticl
e 28
8,
para
grap
h 2,
of t
he C
onve
ntio
n, w
hich
read
s:
A c
ourt
or t
ribun
al r
efer
red
to i
n ar
ticle
287
sha
ll al
so h
ave
juris
dict
ion
over
an
y di
sput
e co
ncer
ning
th
e in
terp
reta
tion
or
appl
icat
ion
of
an
inte
rnat
iona
l agr
eem
ent r
elat
ed to
the
purp
oses
of t
his
Con
vent
ion,
whi
ch
is s
ubm
itted
to it
in a
ccor
danc
e w
ith th
e ag
reem
ent.
44.
It ha
s al
so b
een
cont
ende
d th
at a
rticl
e 28
8, w
hich
is c
onta
ined
in P
art X
V o
f
the
Con
vent
ion
deal
ing
with
“Set
tlem
ent o
f Dis
pute
s”, p
rovi
des
for t
he c
onte
ntio
us
juris
dict
ion
of th
e Tr
ibun
al in
cle
ar a
nd e
xpre
ss te
rms
and
so d
oes
artic
le 2
1 of
the
Sta
tute
.
45.
It ha
s be
en a
rgue
d th
at, h
ad th
e S
tate
s w
hich
neg
otia
ted
the
Con
vent
ion
inte
nded
to c
onfe
r adv
isor
y ju
risdi
ctio
n on
the
Trib
unal
, the
incl
usio
n of
an
expr
ess
prov
isio
n in
the
Con
vent
ion
wou
ld h
ave
been
stra
ight
forw
ard,
but
they
did
not
do
so.
46.
It ha
s al
so b
een
argu
ed th
at th
e w
ord
“mat
ters
” in
the
conc
ludi
ng p
hras
e of
artic
le 2
1 of
the
Sta
tute
, i.e
. “al
l mat
ters
spe
cific
ally
pro
vide
d fo
r in
any
othe
r
agre
emen
t whi
ch c
onfe
rs ju
risdi
ctio
n on
the
Trib
unal
”, re
fers
to c
onte
ntio
us c
ases
, as
may
be
seen
from
the
use
of a
sam
e w
ord
in a
rticl
e 36
, par
agra
ph 1
, of t
he S
tatu
te
of th
e In
tern
atio
nal C
ourt
of J
ustic
e (h
erei
nafte
r “th
e IC
J”) a
nd a
rticl
e 36
of t
he
Sta
tute
of t
he P
erm
anen
t Cou
rt of
Inte
rnat
iona
l Jus
tice
(her
eina
fter “
the
PC
IJ”).
47.
It ha
s be
en f
urth
er c
onte
nded
tha
t th
e R
eque
st d
oes
not
fulfi
l the
ess
entia
l
cond
ition
s se
t out
in a
rticl
e 13
8 of
the
Rul
es.
17
48.
Oth
er p
artic
ipan
ts h
ave
spok
en in
favo
ur o
f the
adv
isor
y ju
risdi
ctio
n of
the
Trib
unal
. The
y ha
ve a
rgue
d th
at a
rticl
e 21
of t
he S
tatu
te b
y its
elf s
erve
s as
a
suffi
cien
t leg
al b
asis
for t
he c
ompe
tenc
e of
the
full
Trib
unal
to a
ccep
t a re
ques
t for
an a
dvis
ory
opin
ion
if it
is s
peci
fical
ly p
rovi
ded
for b
y a
rele
vant
inte
rnat
iona
l
agre
emen
t and
that
ther
e is
no
reas
on to
ass
ume
that
the
wor
ding
“all
mat
ters
” doe
s
not c
over
a re
ques
t for
an
advi
sory
opi
nion
. The
y ha
ve a
dded
that
the
argu
men
ts
that
the
expr
essi
on “a
ll m
atte
rs” m
ust b
e re
ad a
s m
eani
ng “a
ll di
sput
es” a
nd th
at th
e
juris
dict
ion
of th
e Tr
ibun
al is
lim
ited
by a
rticl
e 28
8, p
arag
raph
2, o
f the
Con
vent
ion
cann
ot b
e ac
cept
ed. T
hey
have
poi
nted
out
that
arti
cle
288
of th
e C
onve
ntio
n is
com
plem
ente
d by
the
Sta
tute
, inc
ludi
ng it
s ar
ticle
21.
49.
It ha
s al
so b
een
argu
ed th
at th
e pu
rpos
e of
arti
cle
21 o
f the
Sta
tute
is to
shap
e th
e Tr
ibun
al a
s a
livin
g in
stitu
tion
and
to e
xpre
ssly
pro
vide
room
for S
tate
s to
ente
r int
o bi
late
ral o
r mul
tilat
eral
agr
eem
ents
con
ferri
ng ju
risdi
ctio
n on
the
Trib
unal
.
50.
It ha
s be
en p
oint
ed o
ut th
at a
rticl
e 13
8 of
the
Rul
es d
oes
not c
reat
e a
new
type
of j
uris
dict
ion
but o
nly
spec
ifies
the
prer
equi
site
s th
at th
e Tr
ibun
al h
as
esta
blis
hed
for e
xerc
isin
g its
juris
dict
ion.
51.
It ha
s be
en c
onte
nded
that
, if t
he d
rafte
rs o
f the
Con
vent
ion
had
inte
nded
to
limit
the
Trib
unal
’s ju
risdi
ctio
n un
der a
rticl
e 21
of t
he S
tatu
te to
con
tent
ious
juris
dict
ion,
they
wou
ld h
ave
used
the
expr
essi
on “c
onfe
rs c
onte
ntio
us ju
risdi
ctio
n on
the
Trib
unal
” as
oppo
sed
to “c
onfe
rs ju
risdi
ctio
n on
the
Trib
unal
”, th
e w
ords
empl
oyed
in a
rticl
e 21
of t
he S
tatu
te.
52.
At t
he o
utse
t, th
e Tr
ibun
al w
ishe
s to
cla
rify
the
rela
tions
hip
betw
een
the
Sta
tute
in A
nnex
VI t
o th
e C
onve
ntio
n an
d th
e C
onve
ntio
n. A
s sp
ecifi
ed b
y
artic
le 3
18 o
f the
Con
vent
ion,
Ann
exes
“for
m a
n in
tegr
al p
art o
f thi
s C
onve
ntio
n”. A
s
stat
ed in
arti
cle
1, p
arag
raph
1, o
f the
Sta
tute
, “[t]
he In
tern
atio
nal T
ribun
al fo
r the
Law
of t
he S
ea is
con
stitu
ted
and
shal
l fun
ctio
n in
acc
orda
nce
with
the
prov
isio
ns o
f
this
Con
vent
ion
and
this
Sta
tute
.” It
follo
ws
from
the
abov
e th
at th
e S
tatu
te e
njoy
s
the
sam
e st
atus
as
the
Con
vent
ion.
Acc
ordi
ngly
, arti
cle
21 o
f the
Sta
tute
sho
uld
not
be c
onsi
dere
d as
sub
ordi
nate
to a
rticl
e 28
8 of
the
Con
vent
ion.
It s
tand
s on
its
own
foot
ing
and
shou
ldno
tbe
read
asbe
ing
subj
ectt
oar
ticle
288
ofth
eC
onve
ntio
n.
18
53.
Nei
ther
the
Con
vent
ion
nor t
he S
tatu
te m
akes
exp
licit
refe
renc
e to
the
advi
sory
juris
dict
ion
of th
e Tr
ibun
al. T
hose
who
arg
ued
agai
nst t
he a
dvis
ory
juris
dict
ion
of th
e Tr
ibun
al a
s al
so th
ose
who
con
side
red
that
the
Trib
unal
has
suc
h
juris
dict
ion
cent
red
thei
r arg
umen
ts o
n ar
ticle
21
of th
e S
tatu
te.
54.
Arti
cle
21 o
f the
Sta
tute
, whi
ch is
repr
oduc
ed in
par
agra
ph 3
8, d
eals
with
the
“juris
dict
ion”
of t
he T
ribun
al. I
t pro
vide
s th
at th
e ju
risdi
ctio
n of
the
Trib
unal
com
pris
es
thre
e el
emen
ts: (
i) al
l “di
sput
es” s
ubm
itted
to th
e Tr
ibun
al in
acc
orda
nce
with
the
Con
vent
ion;
(ii)
all “
appl
icat
ions
” sub
mitt
ed to
the
Trib
unal
in a
ccor
danc
e w
ith th
e
Con
vent
ion;
and
(iii)
all
“mat
ters
” (“to
utes
les
fois
que
cel
a” in
Fre
nch)
spe
cific
ally
prov
ided
for i
n an
y ot
her a
gree
men
t whi
ch c
onfe
rs ju
risdi
ctio
n on
the
Trib
unal
.
55.
The
use
of th
e w
ord
“dis
pute
s” in
arti
cle
21 o
f the
Sta
tute
is a
n un
ambi
guou
s
refe
renc
e to
the
cont
entio
us ju
risdi
ctio
n of
the
Trib
unal
. Sim
ilarly
, the
wor
d
“app
licat
ions
” ref
ers
to a
pplic
atio
ns in
con
tent
ious
cas
es s
ubm
itted
to th
e Tr
ibun
al in
acco
rdan
ce w
ith th
e C
onve
ntio
n. T
his
is m
ade
clea
r by
artic
le 2
3 of
the
Sta
tute
,
whi
ch p
rovi
des:
“The
Trib
unal
sha
ll de
cide
all
disp
utes
and
app
licat
ions
in
acco
rdan
ce w
ith a
rticl
e 29
3.” A
rticl
e 29
3 is
foun
d in
Par
t XV
of t
he C
onve
ntio
n,
deal
ing
with
“Set
tlem
ent o
f Dis
pute
s”. R
efer
ence
may
als
o be
mad
e to
arti
cles
292
on “P
rom
pt re
leas
e of
ves
sels
and
cre
ws”
and
294
on
“Pre
limin
ary
proc
eedi
ngs”
in
this
Par
t, w
hich
mak
e pr
ovis
ion
for “
appl
icat
ions
”.
56.
It is
the
third
ele
men
t whi
ch h
as a
ttrac
ted
dive
rse
inte
rpre
tatio
ns. T
he w
ords
all “
mat
ters
” (“to
utes
les
fois
que
cel
a” in
Fre
nch)
sho
uld
not b
e in
terp
rete
d as
cove
ring
only
“dis
pute
s”, f
or, i
f tha
t wer
e to
be
the
case
, arti
cle
21 o
f the
Sta
tute
wou
ld s
impl
y ha
ve u
sed
the
wor
d “d
ispu
tes”
. Con
sequ
ently
, it m
ust m
ean
som
ethi
ng
mor
e th
an o
nly
“dis
pute
s”. T
hat s
omet
hing
mor
e m
ust i
nclu
de a
dvis
ory
opin
ions
, if
spec
ifica
lly p
rovi
ded
for i
n “a
ny o
ther
agr
eem
ent w
hich
con
fers
juris
dict
ion
on th
e
Trib
unal
.”
57.
The
argu
men
t tha
t the
exp
ress
ion
all “
mat
ters
” sho
uld
have
the
sam
e
mea
ning
her
e as
it h
as in
the
Sta
tute
s of
the
PC
IJ a
nd IC
J is
not
tena
ble.
As
the
Trib
unal
held
inth
eM
OX
Pla
ntC
ase,
19
the
appl
icat
ion
of i
nter
natio
nal
law
rul
es o
n in
terp
reta
tion
of t
reat
ies
to
iden
tical
or
sim
ilar
prov
isio
ns o
f diff
eren
t tre
atie
s m
ay n
ot y
ield
the
sam
e re
sults
, hav
ing
rega
rd to
, int
er a
lia, d
iffer
ence
s in
the
resp
ectiv
e co
ntex
ts,
obje
cts
and
purp
oses
, su
bseq
uent
pr
actic
e of
pa
rties
an
d tra
vaux
pr
épar
atoi
res.
(MO
X P
lant
(Ire
land
v.U
nite
d K
ingd
om),
Pro
visi
onal
Mea
sure
s, O
rder
of
3 D
ecem
ber 2
001,
ITLO
S R
epor
ts 2
001,
p. 9
5, a
t p. 1
06, p
ara.
51)
58.
The
Trib
unal
wis
hes
to c
larif
y th
at th
e ex
pres
sion
“all
mat
ters
spe
cific
ally
prov
ided
for i
n an
y ot
her a
gree
men
t whi
ch c
onfe
rs ju
risdi
ctio
n on
the
Trib
unal
” doe
s
not b
y its
elf e
stab
lish
the
advi
sory
juris
dict
ion
of th
e Tr
ibun
al. I
n te
rms
of a
rticl
e 21
of
the
Sta
tute
, it i
s th
e “o
ther
agr
eem
ent”
whi
ch c
onfe
rs s
uch
juris
dict
ion
on th
e Tr
ibun
al.
Whe
n th
e “o
ther
agr
eem
ent”
conf
ers
advi
sory
juris
dict
ion
on th
e Tr
ibun
al, t
he
Trib
unal
then
is re
nder
ed c
ompe
tent
to e
xerc
ise
such
juris
dict
ion
with
rega
rd to
“all
mat
ters
” spe
cific
ally
pro
vide
d fo
r in
the
“oth
er a
gree
men
t”. A
rticl
e 21
and
the
“oth
er
agre
emen
t” co
nfer
ring
juris
dict
ion
on th
e Tr
ibun
al a
re in
terc
onne
cted
and
con
stitu
te
the
subs
tant
ive
lega
l bas
is o
f the
adv
isor
y ju
risdi
ctio
n of
the
Trib
unal
.
59.
The
argu
men
t tha
t it i
s ar
ticle
138
of t
he R
ules
whi
ch e
stab
lishe
s th
e ad
viso
ry
juris
dict
ion
of th
e Tr
ibun
al a
nd th
at, b
eing
a p
roce
dura
l pro
visi
on, a
rticl
e 13
8 ca
nnot
form
a b
asis
for t
he a
dvis
ory
juris
dict
ion
of th
e Tr
ibun
al is
mis
conc
eive
d. A
rticl
e 13
8
does
not
est
ablis
h th
e ad
viso
ry ju
risdi
ctio
n of
the
Trib
unal
. It o
nly
furn
ishe
s th
e
prer
equi
site
s th
at n
eed
to b
e sa
tisfie
d be
fore
the
Trib
unal
can
exe
rcis
e its
adv
isor
y
juris
dict
ion.
60.
Thes
e pr
ereq
uisi
tes
are:
an
inte
rnat
iona
l agr
eem
ent r
elat
ed to
the
purp
oses
of
the
Con
vent
ion
spec
ifica
lly p
rovi
des
for t
he s
ubm
issi
on to
the
Trib
unal
of a
requ
est
for a
n ad
viso
ry o
pini
on; t
he re
ques
t mus
t be
trans
mitt
ed to
the
Trib
unal
by
a bo
dy
auth
oriz
ed b
y or
in a
ccor
danc
e w
ith th
e ag
reem
ent m
entio
ned
abov
e; a
nd s
uch
an
opin
ion
may
be
give
n on
“a le
gal q
uest
ion”
.
61.
In th
e pr
esen
t cas
e, th
e pr
ereq
uisi
tes
spec
ified
in a
rticl
e 13
8 of
the
Rul
es a
re
satis
fied.
62.
The
Trib
unal
not
es th
at, i
n th
e pr
esen
t cas
e, th
e C
onve
ntio
n on
the
Det
erm
inat
ion
of th
e M
inim
al C
ondi
tions
for A
cces
s an
d E
x plo
itatio
n of
Mar
ine
20
Res
ourc
es w
ithin
the
Mar
itim
e A
reas
und
er J
uris
dict
ion
of th
e M
embe
r Sta
tes
of th
e
Sub
-Reg
iona
l Fis
herie
s C
omm
issi
on (h
erei
nafte
r “th
e M
CA
Con
vent
ion”
) is
an
inte
rnat
iona
l agr
eem
ent c
oncl
uded
by
seve
n S
tate
s. A
rticl
e 33
of t
his
agre
emen
t
prov
ides
that
“[t]h
e C
onfe
renc
e of
Min
iste
rs o
f the
SR
FC m
ay a
utho
rize
the
Per
man
ent S
ecre
tary
of t
he S
RFC
to b
ring
a gi
ven
lega
l mat
ter b
efor
e th
e
Inte
rnat
iona
l Trib
unal
of t
he L
aw o
f the
Sea
for a
dvis
ory
opin
ion.
” The
Trib
unal
furth
er n
otes
that
, at i
ts fo
urte
enth
ext
raor
dina
ry s
essi
on, t
he C
onfe
renc
e of
Min
iste
rs
of th
e S
RFC
ado
pted
a re
solu
tion
by w
hich
it d
ecid
ed, i
n ac
cord
ance
with
arti
cle
33
of th
e M
CA
Con
vent
ion,
to a
utho
rize
the
Per
man
ent S
ecre
tary
of t
he C
omm
issi
on to
seiz
e th
e Tr
ibun
al in
ord
er to
obt
ain
an a
dvis
ory
opin
ion.
The
text
of t
hat r
esol
utio
n
was
tran
smitt
ed to
the
Trib
unal
by
a le
tter f
rom
the
Per
man
ent S
ecre
tary
of t
he
Com
mis
sion
dat
ed 2
7 M
arch
201
3, w
hich
was
rece
ived
by
the
Reg
istry
on
28 M
arch
2013
.
63.
As
stat
ed in
its
prea
mbl
e, th
e ob
ject
ive
of th
e M
CA
Con
vent
ion
is to
impl
emen
t the
Con
vent
ion
“esp
ecia
lly it
s pr
ovis
ions
cal
ling
for t
he s
igni
ng o
f reg
iona
l
and
sub-
regi
onal
coo
pera
tion
agre
emen
ts in
the
fishe
ries
sect
or a
s w
ell [
as] t
he
othe
r rel
evan
t int
erna
tiona
l tre
atie
s” a
nd e
nsur
e th
at th
e po
licie
s an
d le
gisl
atio
n of
its
Mem
ber S
tate
s “a
re m
ore
effe
ctiv
ely
harm
oniz
ed w
ith a
vie
w to
a b
ette
r exp
loita
tion
of fi
sher
ies
reso
urce
s in
the
mar
itim
e zo
nes
unde
r the
ir re
spec
tive
juris
dict
ions
, for
the
bene
fit o
f cur
rent
and
futu
re g
ener
atio
ns”.
The
MC
A C
onve
ntio
n is
thus
clo
sely
rela
ted
to th
e pu
rpos
es o
f the
Con
vent
ion.
64.
A f
urth
er i
ssue
is
whe
ther
the
que
stio
ns a
sked
of
the
Trib
unal
are
leg
al i
n
natu
re. T
he q
uest
ions
read
as
follo
ws:
1. W
hat
are
the
oblig
atio
ns o
f th
e fla
g S
tate
in
case
s w
here
ille
gal,
unre
porte
d an
d un
regu
late
d (IU
U)
fishi
ng a
ctiv
ities
are
con
duct
ed w
ithin
th
e E
xclu
sive
Eco
nom
ic Z
one
of th
ird p
arty
Sta
tes?
2. T
o w
hat
exte
nt s
hall
the
flag
Sta
te b
e he
ld l
iabl
e fo
r IU
U f
ishi
ng
activ
ities
con
duct
ed b
y ve
ssel
s sa
iling
und
er it
s fla
g?
3. W
here
a fi
shin
g lic
ense
is is
sued
to a
ves
sel w
ithin
the
fram
ewor
k of
an
inte
rnat
iona
l agr
eem
ent w
ith th
e fla
g S
tate
or w
ith a
n in
tern
atio
nal a
genc
y,
shal
l the
Sta
te o
r int
erna
tiona
l age
ncy
be h
eld
liabl
e fo
r the
vio
latio
n of
the
fishe
ries
legi
slat
ion
of th
e co
asta
l Sta
te b
y th
e ve
ssel
in q
uest
ion?
22
prov
ided
for i
n an
y ot
her a
gree
men
t” in
arti
cle
21 o
f the
Sta
tute
sho
uld
be in
terp
rete
d
rest
rictiv
ely.
69.
For t
he re
ason
s gi
ven
abov
e, th
e Tr
ibun
al fi
nds
that
it h
as ju
risdi
ctio
n to
ente
rtain
the
Req
uest
sub
mitt
ed to
it b
y th
e S
RFC
. As
held
late
r in
this
Adv
isor
y
Opi
nion
, the
juris
dict
ion
of th
e Tr
ibun
al in
the
pres
ent c
ase
is li
mite
d to
the
excl
usiv
e
econ
omic
zon
es o
f the
SR
FC M
embe
r Sta
tes.
III.
Dis
cret
iona
ry p
ower
70.
The
Trib
unal
will
now
turn
to th
e is
sue
of it
s di
scre
tiona
ry p
ower
to re
nder
an
advi
sory
opi
nion
in th
e pr
esen
t cas
e.
71.
Arti
cle
138
of th
e R
ules
, whi
ch p
rovi
des
that
“the
Trib
unal
may
giv
e an
advi
sory
opi
nion
”, sh
ould
be
inte
rpre
ted
to m
ean
that
the
Trib
unal
has
a d
iscr
etio
nary
pow
er to
refu
se to
giv
e an
adv
isor
y op
inio
n ev
en if
the
cond
ition
s of
juris
dict
ion
are
satis
fied.
It is
wel
l set
tled
that
a re
ques
t for
an
advi
sory
opi
nion
sho
uld
not i
n
prin
cipl
e be
refu
sed
exce
pt fo
r “co
mpe
lling
reas
ons”
(see
Leg
ality
of t
he T
hrea
t or
Use
of N
ucle
ar W
eapo
ns, A
dvis
ory
Opi
nion
, I.C
.J. R
epor
ts 1
996,
p. 2
26, a
t p. 2
35,
para
. 14)
. The
que
stio
n is
whe
ther
ther
e ar
e co
mpe
lling
reas
ons
in th
is c
ase
why
the
Trib
unal
sho
uld
not g
ive
the
advi
sory
opi
nion
whi
ch th
e S
RFC
has
requ
este
d.
72.
It ha
s be
en a
rgue
d th
at th
e qu
estio
ns ra
ised
by
the
SR
FC, t
houg
h le
gal,
are
vagu
e, g
ener
al a
nd u
ncle
ar. I
n th
e vi
ew o
f the
Trib
unal
, the
se q
uest
ions
are
cle
ar
enou
gh to
ena
ble
it to
del
iver
an
advi
sory
opi
nion
. It i
s al
so w
ell s
ettle
d th
at a
n
advi
sory
opi
nion
may
be
give
n “o
n an
y le
gal q
uest
ion,
abs
tract
or o
ther
wis
e” (s
ee
Con
ditio
ns o
f Adm
issi
on o
f a S
tate
to M
embe
rshi
p in
the
Uni
ted
Nat
ions
(Arti
cle
4 of
the
Cha
rter)
, Adv
isor
y O
pini
on, 1
948,
I.C
.J. R
epor
ts 1
947-
1948
, p. 5
7, a
t p. 6
1).
73.
It ha
s al
so b
een
cont
ende
d th
at, w
hile
the
four
que
stio
ns m
ay b
e co
uche
d as
lega
l que
stio
ns, w
hat t
he S
RFC
act
ually
see
ks is
not
ans
wer
s le
x la
ta, b
ut
lex
fere
nda
and
that
is o
utsi
de th
e fu
nctio
ns o
f the
Trib
unal
as
a ju
dici
al b
ody.
23
74.
The
Trib
unal
doe
s no
t con
side
r tha
t, in
sub
mitt
ing
this
Req
uest
, the
SR
FC is
seek
ing
a le
gisl
ativ
e ro
le fo
r the
Trib
unal
. The
Trib
unal
als
o w
ishe
s to
mak
e it
clea
r
that
it d
oes
not t
ake
a po
sitio
n on
issu
es b
eyon
d th
e sc
ope
of it
s ju
dici
al fu
nctio
ns.
75.
It ha
s be
en a
rgue
d th
at in
this
cas
e th
e Tr
ibun
al s
houl
d no
t pro
noun
ce o
n th
e
right
s an
d ob
ligat
ions
of t
hird
Sta
tes
not m
embe
rs o
f the
SR
FC w
ithou
t the
ir co
nsen
t.
It ha
s al
so b
een
obse
rved
that
the
pres
ent R
eque
st fo
r an
advi
sory
opi
nion
doe
s no
t
invo
lve
an u
nder
lyin
g di
sput
e an
d th
at th
e is
sue
of S
tate
con
sent
sim
ply
does
not
aris
e in
this
adv
isor
y pr
ocee
ding
.
76.
The
Trib
unal
wis
hes
to c
larif
y in
this
rega
rd th
at in
adv
isor
y pr
ocee
ding
s th
e
cons
ent o
f Sta
tes
not m
embe
rs o
f the
SR
FC is
not
rele
vant
(see
Inte
rpre
tatio
n of
Pea
ce T
reat
ies
with
Bul
garia
, Hun
gary
and
Rom
ania
, Firs
t Pha
se, A
dvis
ory
Opi
nion
,
I.C.J
. Rep
orts
195
0, p
. 65,
at p
. 71)
. The
adv
isor
y op
inio
n as
suc
h ha
s no
bin
ding
forc
e an
d is
giv
en o
nly
to th
e S
RFC
, whi
ch c
onsi
ders
it to
be
desi
rabl
e “in
ord
er to
obta
in e
nlig
hten
men
t as
to th
e co
urse
of a
ctio
n it
shou
ld ta
ke” (
ibid
., p.
71)
. The
obje
ct o
f the
requ
est b
y th
e S
RFC
is to
see
k gu
idan
ce in
resp
ect o
f its
ow
n ac
tions
.
77.
The
Trib
unal
is m
indf
ul o
f the
fact
that
by
answ
erin
g th
e qu
estio
ns it
will
ass
ist
the
SR
FC in
the
perfo
rman
ce o
f its
act
iviti
es a
nd c
ontri
bute
to th
e im
plem
enta
tion
of
the
Con
vent
ion
(see
Res
pons
ibili
ties
and
oblig
atio
ns o
f Sta
tes
with
resp
ect t
o
activ
ities
in th
e A
rea,
Adv
isor
y O
pini
on, 1
Feb
ruar
y 20
11, I
TLO
S R
epor
ts 2
011,
p. 1
0,
at p
. 24,
par
a. 3
0).
78.
In v
iew
of w
hat i
s st
ated
abo
ve, t
he T
ribun
al d
oes
not f
ind
any
com
pelli
ng
reas
ons
to u
se it
s di
scre
tiona
ry p
ower
not
to g
ive
an a
dvis
ory
opin
ion.
79.
Acc
ordi
ngly
, the
Trib
unal
dee
ms
it ap
prop
riate
to r
ende
r th
e ad
viso
ry o
pini
on
requ
este
d by
the
SR
FC.
31
105.
To
ens
ure
com
plia
nce
with
its
law
s an
d re
gula
tions
con
cern
ing
the
cons
erva
tion
and
man
agem
ent m
easu
res
for l
ivin
g re
sour
ces
purs
uant
to a
rticl
e 73
,
para
grap
h 1,
of t
he C
onve
ntio
n, th
e co
asta
l Sta
te m
ay ta
ke s
uch
mea
sure
s,
incl
udin
g bo
ardi
ng, i
nspe
ctio
n, a
rres
t and
judi
cial
pro
ceed
ings
, as
may
be
nece
ssar
y
to e
nsur
e co
mpl
ianc
e w
ith th
e la
ws
and
regu
latio
ns a
dopt
ed b
y it
in c
onfo
rmity
with
the
Con
vent
ion.
106.
Th
us, i
n lig
ht o
f the
spe
cial
righ
ts a
nd re
spon
sibi
litie
s gi
ven
to th
e co
asta
l
Sta
te in
the
excl
usiv
e ec
onom
ic z
one
unde
r the
Con
vent
ion,
the
prim
ary
resp
onsi
bilit
y fo
r tak
ing
the
nece
ssar
y m
easu
res
to p
reve
nt, d
eter
and
elim
inat
e IU
U
fishi
ng re
sts
with
the
coas
tal S
tate
.
107.
Th
is re
spon
sibi
lity
of th
e co
asta
l Sta
te is
als
o ac
know
ledg
ed in
the
MC
A
Con
vent
ion,
whi
ch s
tate
s in
arti
cle
25 th
at th
e S
RFC
Mem
ber S
tate
s co
mm
it
them
selv
es to
take
suc
h m
easu
res,
and
, to
this
end
, to
stre
ngth
en c
oope
ratio
n to
fight
aga
inst
IUU
fish
ing,
in a
ccor
danc
e w
ith in
tern
atio
nal l
aw.
108.
Th
e Tr
ibun
al w
ishe
s to
em
phas
ize
that
the
prim
ary
resp
onsi
bilit
y of
the
coas
tal S
tate
in c
ases
of I
UU
fish
ing
cond
ucte
d w
ithin
its
excl
usiv
e ec
onom
ic z
one
does
not
rele
ase
othe
r Sta
tes
from
thei
r obl
igat
ions
in th
is re
gard
.
109.
Th
e Tr
ibun
al w
ill no
w tu
rn to
the
exam
inat
ion
of th
e ob
ligat
ions
of f
lag
Sta
tes
in th
e ex
clus
ive
econ
omic
zon
es o
f the
SR
FC M
embe
r Sta
tes
in re
latio
n to
the
livin
g
reso
urce
s in
thes
e zo
nes.
The
se w
ill b
e co
nsid
ered
from
two
pers
pect
ives
: tha
t of
gene
ral o
blig
atio
ns o
f Sta
tes
unde
r the
Con
vent
ion
with
rega
rd to
the
cons
erva
tion
and
man
agem
ent o
f mar
ine
livin
g re
sour
ces
and
that
of s
peci
fic o
blig
atio
ns o
f fla
g
Sta
tes
in th
e ex
clus
ive
econ
omic
zon
e of
the
coas
tal S
tate
.
110.
Th
e Tr
ibun
al o
bser
ves
that
the
issu
e of
flag
Sta
te re
spon
sibi
lity
for I
UU
fish
ing
activ
ities
is n
ot d
irect
ly a
ddre
ssed
in th
e C
onve
ntio
n. T
here
fore
, thi
s is
sue
is
exam
ined
by
the
Trib
unal
in li
ght o
f gen
eral
and
spe
cific
obl
igat
ions
of f
lag
Sta
tes
unde
r the
Con
vent
ion
for t
he c
onse
rvat
ion
and
man
agem
ent o
f mar
ine
livin
g
reso
urce
s.
32
111.
Th
e C
onve
ntio
n co
ntai
ns p
rovi
sion
s co
ncer
ning
gen
eral
obl
igat
ions
whi
ch a
re
to b
e m
et b
y th
e fla
g S
tate
in a
ll m
ariti
me
area
s re
gula
ted
by th
e C
onve
ntio
n,
incl
udin
g th
e ex
clus
ive
econ
omic
zon
e of
the
coas
tal S
tate
. The
se g
ener
al
oblig
atio
ns a
re s
et o
ut in
arti
cles
91,
92
and
94 a
s w
ell a
s ar
ticle
s 19
2 an
d 19
3 of
the
Con
vent
ion.
At t
he s
ame
time,
the
Con
vent
ion
impo
ses
spec
ific
oblig
atio
ns o
n th
e
flag
Sta
te in
arti
cle
58, p
arag
raph
3, a
nd a
rticl
e 62
, par
agra
ph 4
, of t
he C
onve
ntio
n
with
rega
rd to
its
activ
ities
with
in th
e ex
clus
ive
econ
omic
zon
e of
the
coas
tal S
tate
, in
parti
cula
r in
resp
ect o
f fis
hing
act
iviti
es c
ondu
cted
by
natio
nals
of t
he fl
ag S
tate
.
112.
Th
e Tr
ibun
al w
ishe
s to
obs
erve
that
gen
eral
and
spe
cific
obl
igat
ions
of f
lag
Sta
tes
for t
he c
onse
rvat
ion
and
man
agem
ent o
f mar
ine
livin
g re
sour
ces
set o
ut in
the
Con
vent
ion
are
furth
er s
peci
fied
in fi
sher
ies
acce
ss a
gree
men
ts c
oncl
uded
betw
een
coas
tal S
tate
s an
d fla
g S
tate
s co
ncer
ned.
The
Trib
unal
als
o ob
serv
es, i
n
this
rega
rd, t
hat t
he M
CA
Con
vent
ion
cont
ains
spe
cific
pro
visi
ons
on th
e m
inim
um
cond
ition
s fo
r acc
ess
and
expl
oita
tion
of m
arin
e re
sour
ces
with
in th
e m
ariti
me
zone
s
unde
r the
juris
dict
ion
of th
e S
RFC
Mem
ber S
tate
s.
113.
Th
e Tr
ibun
al n
otes
that
the
prov
isio
ns o
f the
MC
A C
onve
ntio
n re
quire
, int
er
alia
, tha
t fis
hing
ves
sels
bel
ongi
ng to
a n
on-M
embe
r Sta
te o
btai
n a
fishi
ng li
cenc
e
issu
ed b
y th
e S
RFC
Mem
ber S
tate
con
cern
ed a
nd la
nd a
ll th
eir c
atch
es in
the
ports
of th
e S
RFC
Mem
ber S
tate
that
issu
ed th
e fis
hing
lice
nce.
Suc
h pr
ovis
ions
als
o
requ
ire fi
shin
g ve
ssel
s to
car
ry o
ut a
ny tr
ansh
ipm
ent i
n ha
rbou
rs d
esig
nate
d by
the
SR
FC M
embe
r Sta
te, p
rovi
de d
ecla
ratio
ns o
f cat
ches
in th
eir l
ogbo
ok, a
nd re
frain
from
em
ploy
ing
proh
ibite
d ge
ar o
r equ
ipm
ent.
In a
dditi
on, t
he p
rovi
sion
s of
the
MC
A
Con
vent
ion
requ
ire fi
shin
g ve
ssel
s to
giv
e no
tice
of th
eir e
ntry
into
and
exi
t fro
m
mar
itim
e zo
nes
unde
r the
juris
dict
ion
of a
n S
RFC
Mem
ber S
tate
and
to ta
ke o
n
boar
d ob
serv
ers
or in
spec
tors
from
the
SR
FC M
embe
r Sta
te.
114.
Th
e Tr
ibun
al fu
rther
not
es th
at b
ilate
ral f
ishe
ries
acce
ss a
gree
men
ts
conc
lude
d by
the
SR
FC M
embe
r Sta
tes
cont
ain
prov
isio
ns s
ettin
g ou
t obl
igat
ions
for
the
flag
Sta
te a
nd v
esse
ls fl
ying
its
flag.
Suc
h ob
ligat
ions
requ
ire th
e fla
g S
tate
, int
er
alia
, to:
ens
ure
com
plia
nce
by it
s ve
ssel
s w
ith th
e la
ws
and
regu
latio
ns o
f the
SR
FC
Mem
ber S
tate
gov
erni
ng fi
sher
ies
in th
e m
ariti
me
zone
und
er th
e ju
risdi
ctio
n of
the
33
SR
FC M
embe
r Sta
te a
s w
ell a
s w
ith th
e re
leva
nt fi
sher
ies
acce
ss a
gree
men
ts;
ensu
re th
at it
s ve
ssel
s un
derta
ke re
spon
sibl
e fis
hing
on
the
basi
s of
the
prin
cipl
e of
sust
aina
ble
expl
oita
tion
of fi
sher
y re
sour
ces;
and
, with
rega
rd to
hig
hly
mig
rato
ry
spec
ies,
ens
ure
com
plia
nce
with
mea
sure
s an
d re
com
men
datio
ns o
f the
Inte
rnat
iona
l Com
mis
sion
for t
he C
onse
rvat
ion
of A
tlant
ic T
unas
(her
eina
fter
“ICC
AT”
). V
esse
ls o
f the
flag
Sta
te a
re re
quire
d, in
ter a
lia, t
o: p
osse
ss a
val
id fi
shin
g
auth
oriz
atio
n is
sued
by
the
SR
FC M
embe
r Sta
te; f
orw
ard
to th
e S
RFC
Mem
ber
Sta
te s
tate
men
ts o
f the
ir ca
tche
s; re
port
to th
e S
RFC
Mem
ber S
tate
the
date
and
time
of th
eir e
ntry
into
and
exi
t fro
m th
e m
ariti
me
zone
s; a
llow
on
boar
d of
ficia
ls fr
om
the
SR
FC M
embe
r Sta
te fo
r the
insp
ectio
n an
d co
ntro
l of f
ishi
ng a
ctiv
ities
; tak
e on
boar
d ob
serv
ers
appo
inte
d by
the
SR
FC M
embe
r Sta
te; b
e eq
uipp
ed w
ith a
sat
ellit
e
mon
itorin
g sy
stem
. In
addi
tion,
suc
h ve
ssel
s ar
e re
quire
d to
sen
d th
e po
sitio
n
mes
sage
s to
the
SR
FC M
embe
r Sta
te w
hen
they
are
in th
e m
ariti
me
zone
s un
der i
ts
juris
dict
ion.
115.
A
rticl
e 92
of t
he C
onve
ntio
n st
ipul
ates
that
, sav
e in
exc
eptio
nal c
ases
expr
essl
y pr
ovid
ed fo
r in
inte
rnat
iona
l tre
atie
s or
in th
e C
onve
ntio
n, s
hips
are
sub
ject
to th
e ex
clus
ive
juris
dict
ion
of th
e fla
g S
tate
on
the
high
sea
s; b
y vi
rtue
of a
rticl
e 58
,
this
als
o ap
plie
s to
the
excl
usiv
e ec
onom
ic z
one
in s
o fa
r as
it is
not
inco
mpa
tible
with
Par
t V o
f the
Con
vent
ion.
116.
A
rticl
e 94
, par
agra
ph 1
, of t
he C
onve
ntio
n re
quire
s th
e fla
g S
tate
to e
ffect
ivel
y
exer
cise
its
juris
dict
ion
and
cont
rol o
ver s
hips
flyi
ng it
s fla
g in
“adm
inis
trativ
e,
tech
nica
l and
soc
ial m
atte
rs”.
To a
chie
ve th
is p
urpo
se, t
he fl
ag S
tate
is re
quire
d by
artic
le 9
4, p
arag
raph
2, s
ubpa
ragr
aph
(b),
to “a
ssum
e ju
risdi
ctio
n un
der i
ts in
tern
al
law
ove
r eac
h sh
ip fl
ying
its
flag
and
its m
aste
r, of
ficer
s an
d cr
ew in
resp
ect o
f
adm
inis
trativ
e, te
chni
cal a
nd s
ocia
l mat
ters
con
cern
ing
the
ship
.” A
rticl
e 94
spe
cifie
s
in p
arag
raph
s 2,
sub
para
grap
h (a
), 3
and
4, th
at s
uch
exer
cise
of j
uris
dict
ion
and
cont
rol b
y th
e fla
g S
tate
mus
t inc
lude
, in
parti
cula
r, m
aint
aini
ng a
regi
ster
of s
hips
cont
aini
ng th
e na
mes
and
par
ticul
ars
of th
e sh
ips
flyin
g its
flag
, and
taki
ng n
eces
sary
mea
sure
s: to
ens
ure
safe
ty o
f nav
igat
ion
and
perio
dica
l sur
veyi
ng b
y a
qual
ified
surv
eyor
of s
hips
; to
ensu
re th
at e
ach
ship
flyi
ng it
s fla
g is
in th
e ch
arge
of a
mas
ter
and
offic
ers
who
pos
sess
app
ropr
iate
qua
lific
atio
ns; a
nd to
ens
ure
that
the
crew
is
34
appr
opria
te in
qua
lific
atio
n an
d nu
mbe
rs fo
r the
type
, siz
e, m
achi
nery
and
equ
ipm
ent
of th
e sh
ip.
117.
Th
e Tr
ibun
al h
olds
the
view
that
, sin
ce a
rticl
e 94
, par
agra
ph 2
, of t
he
Con
vent
ion
star
ts w
ith th
e w
ords
“[i]n
par
ticul
ar”,
the
list o
f mea
sure
s th
at a
re to
be
take
n by
the
flag
Sta
te to
ens
ure
effe
ctiv
e ex
erci
se o
f its
juris
dict
ion
and
cont
rol o
ver
ship
s fly
ing
its fl
ag in
adm
inis
trativ
e, te
chni
cal a
nd s
ocia
l mat
ters
is o
nly
indi
cativ
e,
not e
xhau
stiv
e.
118.
Fu
rther
, und
er a
rticl
e 94
, par
agra
ph 6
, of t
he C
onve
ntio
n, if
a S
tate
has
cle
ar
grou
nds
to b
elie
ve th
at p
rope
r jur
isdi
ctio
n an
d co
ntro
l with
resp
ect t
o a
ship
hav
e no
t
been
exe
rcis
ed, i
t may
repo
rt th
e fa
cts
to th
e fla
g S
tate
and
the
latte
r is
oblig
ed to
inve
stig
ate
the
mat
ter u
pon
rece
ivin
g su
ch a
repo
rt an
d, if
app
ropr
iate
, tak
e an
y
actio
n ne
cess
ary
to re
med
y th
e si
tuat
ion.
The
Trib
unal
is o
f the
vie
w th
at th
e fla
g
Sta
te is
und
er th
e ob
ligat
ion
to in
form
the
repo
rting
Sta
te a
bout
the
actio
n ta
ken.
119.
It
follo
ws
from
the
prov
isio
ns o
f arti
cle
94 o
f the
Con
vent
ion
that
as
far a
s
fishi
ng a
ctiv
ities
are
con
cern
ed, t
he fl
ag S
tate
, in
fulfi
lmen
t of i
ts re
spon
sibi
lity
to
exer
cise
effe
ctiv
e ju
risdi
ctio
n an
d co
ntro
l in
adm
inis
trativ
e m
atte
rs, m
ust a
dopt
the
nece
ssar
y ad
min
istra
tive
mea
sure
s to
ens
ure
that
fish
ing
vess
els
flyin
g its
flag
are
not i
nvol
ved
in a
ctiv
ities
whi
ch w
ill u
nder
min
e th
e fla
g S
tate
’s re
spon
sibi
litie
s un
der
the
Con
vent
ion
in re
spec
t of t
he c
onse
rvat
ion
and
man
agem
ent o
f mar
ine
livin
g
reso
urce
s. If
suc
h vi
olat
ions
nev
erth
eles
s oc
cur a
nd a
re re
porte
d by
oth
er S
tate
s,
the
flag
Sta
te is
obl
iged
to in
vest
igat
e an
d, if
app
ropr
iate
, tak
e an
y ac
tion
nece
ssar
y
to re
med
y th
e si
tuat
ion.
120.
A
rticl
e 19
2 of
the
Con
vent
ion
impo
ses
on a
ll S
tate
s P
artie
s an
obl
igat
ion
to
prot
ect a
nd p
rese
rve
the
mar
ine
envi
ronm
ent.
Arti
cle
193
of th
e C
onve
ntio
n pr
ovid
es
that
“Sta
tes
have
the
sove
reig
n rig
ht to
exp
loit
thei
r nat
ural
reso
urce
s pu
rsua
nt to
thei
r env
ironm
enta
l pol
icie
s an
d in
acc
orda
nce
with
thei
r dut
y to
pro
tect
and
pre
serv
e
the
mar
ine
envi
ronm
ent.”
In th
e S
outh
ern
Blu
efin
Tun
a C
ases
, the
Trib
unal
obs
erve
d
that
“the
con
serv
atio
n of
the
livin
g re
sour
ces
of th
e se
a is
an
elem
ent i
n th
e
prot
ectio
n an
d pr
eser
vatio
n of
the
mar
ine
envi
ronm
ent”
(Sou
ther
n B
luef
in T
una
(New
Zeal
and
v.Ja
pan;
Aus
tralia
v.Ja
pan)
,Pro
visi
onal
Mea
sure
s,O
rder
of27
Aug
ust
35
1999
, ITL
OS
Rep
orts
199
9, p
. 280
, at p
. 295
, par
a. 7
0). A
s ar
ticle
192
app
lies
to a
ll
mar
itim
e ar
eas,
incl
udin
g th
ose
enco
mpa
ssed
by
excl
usiv
e ec
onom
ic z
ones
, the
flag
Sta
te is
und
er a
n ob
ligat
ion
to e
nsur
e co
mpl
ianc
e by
ves
sels
flyi
ng it
s fla
g w
ith th
e
rele
vant
con
serv
atio
n m
easu
res
conc
erni
ng li
ving
reso
urce
s en
acte
d by
the
coas
tal
Sta
te fo
r its
exc
lusi
ve e
cono
mic
zon
e be
caus
e, a
s co
nclu
ded
by th
e Tr
ibun
al, t
hey
cons
titut
e an
inte
gral
ele
men
t in
the
prot
ectio
n an
d pr
eser
vatio
n of
the
mar
ine
envi
ronm
ent.
121.
A
s to
the
spec
ific
oblig
atio
ns o
f fla
g S
tate
s in
the
excl
usiv
e ec
onom
ic z
one
of
the
coas
tal S
tate
, arti
cle
58, p
arag
raph
3, o
f the
Con
vent
ion
prov
ides
that
:
In e
xerc
isin
g th
eir
right
s an
d pe
rform
ing
thei
r du
ties
… in
the
exc
lusi
ve
econ
omic
zon
e, S
tate
s sh
all h
ave
due
rega
rd to
the
right
s an
d du
ties
of
the
coas
tal S
tate
and
sha
ll co
mpl
y w
ith th
e la
ws
and
regu
latio
ns a
dopt
ed
by th
e co
asta
l Sta
te in
acc
orda
nce
with
the
prov
isio
ns o
f thi
s C
onve
ntio
n an
d ot
her
rule
s of
inte
rnat
iona
l law
in s
o fa
r as
they
are
not
inco
mpa
tible
w
ith th
is P
art.
122.
Th
e C
onve
ntio
n fu
rther
stip
ulat
es, i
n ar
ticle
62,
par
agra
ph 4
, tha
t “[n
]atio
nals
of o
ther
Sta
tes
fishi
ng in
the
excl
usiv
e ec
onom
ic z
one
shal
l com
ply
with
the
cons
erva
tion
mea
sure
s an
d w
ith th
e ot
her t
erm
s an
d co
nditi
ons
esta
blis
hed
in th
e
law
s an
d re
gula
tions
of t
he c
oast
al S
tate
.”
123.
Th
e Tr
ibun
al is
of t
he v
iew
that
arti
cle
62, p
arag
raph
4, o
f the
Con
vent
ion
impo
ses
an o
blig
atio
n on
Sta
tes
to e
nsur
e th
at th
eir n
atio
nals
eng
aged
in fi
shin
g
activ
ities
with
in th
e ex
clus
ive
econ
omic
zon
e of
a c
oast
al S
tate
com
ply
with
the
cons
erva
tion
mea
sure
s an
d w
ith th
e ot
her t
erm
s an
d co
nditi
ons
esta
blis
hed
in it
s
law
s an
d re
gula
tions
.
124.
It
follo
ws
from
arti
cle
58, p
arag
raph
3, a
nd a
rticl
e 62
, par
agra
ph 4
, as
wel
l as
from
arti
cle
192,
of t
he C
onve
ntio
n th
at fl
ag S
tate
s ar
e ob
liged
to ta
ke th
e ne
cess
ary
mea
sure
s to
ens
ure
that
thei
r nat
iona
ls a
nd v
esse
ls fl
ying
thei
r fla
g ar
e no
t eng
aged
in IU
U fi
shin
g ac
tiviti
es. I
n ac
cord
ance
with
the
MC
A C
onve
ntio
n an
d th
e na
tiona
l
legi
slat
ion
of th
e S
RFC
Mem
ber S
tate
s, s
uch
activ
ities
als
o co
nstit
ute
an
infri
ngem
ent o
f the
con
serv
atio
n an
d m
anag
emen
t mea
sure
s ad
opte
d by
thes
e
Sta
tes
with
in th
eir e
xclu
sive
eco
nom
ic z
ones
. In
othe
r wor
ds, w
hile
und
er th
e
36
Con
vent
ion
the
prim
ary
resp
onsi
bilit
y fo
r the
con
serv
atio
n an
d m
anag
emen
t of l
ivin
g
reso
urce
s in
the
excl
usiv
e ec
onom
ic z
one,
incl
udin
g th
e ad
optio
n of
suc
h m
easu
res
as m
ay b
e ne
cess
ary
to e
nsur
e co
mpl
ianc
e w
ith th
e la
ws
and
regu
latio
ns e
nact
ed b
y
the
coas
tal S
tate
in th
is re
gard
, res
ts w
ith th
e co
asta
l Sta
te, f
lag
Sta
tes
also
hav
e th
e
resp
onsi
bilit
y to
ens
ure
that
ves
sels
flyi
ng th
eir f
lag
do n
ot c
ondu
ct IU
U fi
shin
g
activ
ities
with
in th
e ex
clus
ive
econ
omic
zon
es o
f the
SR
FC M
embe
r Sta
tes.
125.
In
this
rega
rd, t
he T
ribun
al d
raw
s at
tent
ion
to th
e cl
arifi
catio
ns g
iven
by
the
Sea
bed
Dis
pute
s C
ham
ber i
n its
Adv
isor
y O
pini
on o
n th
e R
espo
nsib
ilitie
s an
d
oblig
atio
ns o
f Sta
tes
spon
sorin
g pe
rson
s an
d en
titie
s w
ith re
spec
t to
activ
ities
in th
e
Are
a. A
lthou
gh th
e re
latio
nshi
p be
twee
n sp
onso
ring
Sta
tes
and
cont
ract
ors
is n
ot
entir
ely
com
para
ble
to th
at e
xist
ing
betw
een
the
flag
Sta
te a
nd v
esse
ls fl
ying
its
flag
whi
ch a
re e
ngag
ed in
fish
ing
activ
ities
in th
e ex
clus
ive
econ
omic
zon
e of
the
coas
tal
Sta
te, t
he T
ribun
al h
olds
the
view
that
the
clar
ifica
tions
pro
vide
d by
the
Sea
bed
Dis
pute
s C
ham
ber r
egar
ding
the
mea
ning
of t
he e
xpre
ssio
n “re
spon
sibi
lity
to e
nsur
e”
and
the
inte
rrela
tions
hip
betw
een
the
notio
ns o
f obl
igat
ions
“of d
ue d
iligen
ce” a
nd
oblig
atio
ns “o
f con
duct
” ref
erre
d to
in p
arag
raph
129
are
fully
app
licab
le in
the
pres
ent c
ase.
126.
W
ith re
fere
nce
to th
e m
eani
ng o
f the
exp
ress
ion
“resp
onsi
bilit
y to
ens
ure”
, the
Sea
bed
Dis
pute
s C
ham
ber i
n its
Adv
isor
y O
pini
on s
tate
s th
at:
“Res
pons
ibili
ty to
ens
ure”
poi
nts
to a
n ob
ligat
ion
of th
e sp
onso
ring
Sta
te
unde
r in
tern
atio
nal
law
. It
esta
blis
hes
a m
echa
nism
thr
ough
whi
ch t
he
rule
s of
the
Con
vent
ion
conc
erni
ng a
ctiv
ities
in th
e A
rea,
alth
ough
bei
ng
treat
y la
w a
nd th
us b
indi
ng o
nly
on th
e su
bjec
ts o
f int
erna
tiona
l law
that
ha
ve a
ccep
ted
them
, be
com
e ef
fect
ive
for
spon
sore
d co
ntra
ctor
s w
hich
fin
d th
eir
lega
l ba
sis
in d
omes
tic l
aw.
This
mec
hani
sm c
onsi
sts
in t
he
crea
tion
of o
blig
atio
ns w
hich
Sta
tes
Par
ties
mus
t ful
fil b
y ex
erci
sing
thei
r po
wer
ove
r ent
ities
of t
heir
natio
nalit
y an
d un
der t
heir
cont
rol.
(R
espo
nsib
ilitie
s an
d ob
ligat
ions
of S
tate
s w
ith r
espe
ct to
act
iviti
es in
the
Are
a, A
dvis
ory
Opi
nion
, 1 F
ebru
ary
2011
, ITL
OS
Rep
orts
201
1, p
. 10,
at
pp. 4
0-41
, par
a. 1
08)
127.
In
the
pres
ent c
ase,
as
has
been
exp
lain
ed e
arlie
r, th
e fla
g S
tate
has
the
“res
pons
ibili
ty to
ens
ure”
, pur
suan
t to
artic
les
58, p
arag
raph
3, a
nd 6
2, p
arag
raph
4,
of th
e C
onve
ntio
n, c
ompl
ianc
e by
ves
sels
flyi
ng it
s fla
g w
ith th
e la
ws
and
regu
latio
ns
conc
erni
ng c
onse
rvat
ion
mea
sure
s ad
opte
d by
the
coas
tal S
tate
. The
flag
Sta
te
37
mus
t mee
t thi
s re
spon
sibi
lity
by ta
king
mea
sure
s de
fined
in p
arag
raph
s 13
4 to
140
as w
ell a
s by
effe
ctiv
ely
exer
cisi
ng it
s ju
risdi
ctio
n an
d co
ntro
l in
“adm
inis
trativ
e,
tech
nica
l and
soc
ial m
atte
rs” o
ver s
hips
flyi
ng it
s fla
g in
acc
orda
nce
with
arti
cle
94,
para
grap
h 1,
of t
he C
onve
ntio
n.
128.
A
s to
the
mea
ning
of t
he te
rm “t
o en
sure
”, th
e S
eabe
d D
ispu
tes
Cha
mbe
r in
its A
dvis
ory
Opi
nion
sta
tes
that
:
110.
Th
e sp
onso
ring
Sta
te’s
obl
igat
ion
“to e
nsur
e” is
not
an
oblig
atio
n to
ach
ieve
, in
eac
h an
d ev
ery
case
, th
e re
sult
that
the
spo
nsor
ed
cont
ract
or c
ompl
ies
with
the
afo
rem
entio
ned
oblig
atio
ns.
Rat
her,
it is
an
oblig
atio
n to
dep
loy
adeq
uate
mea
ns, t
o ex
erci
se b
est p
ossi
ble
effo
rts, t
o do
the
utm
ost,
to o
btai
n th
is r
esul
t. To
util
ize
the
term
inol
ogy
curr
ent
in
inte
rnat
iona
l law
, thi
s ob
ligat
ion
may
be
char
acte
rized
as
an o
blig
atio
n “o
f co
nduc
t” an
d no
t “of
resu
lt”, a
nd a
s an
obl
igat
ion
of “d
ue d
ilige
nce”
.
111.
Th
e no
tions
of
oblig
atio
ns “
of d
ue d
ilige
nce”
and
obl
igat
ions
“of
co
nduc
t” ar
e co
nnec
ted.
Thi
s em
erge
s cl
early
fro
m t
he J
udgm
ent
of t
he
ICJ
in t
he P
ulp
Mill
s on
the
Riv
er U
rugu
ay:
“An
oblig
atio
n to
ado
pt
regu
lato
ry o
r ad
min
istra
tive
mea
sure
s .
. .
and
to e
nfor
ce t
hem
is
an
oblig
atio
n of
con
duct
. Bot
h pa
rties
are
ther
efor
e ca
lled
upon
, und
er a
rticl
e 36
[of
the
Sta
tute
of
the
Riv
er U
rugu
ay],
to e
xerc
ise
due
dilig
ence
in
actin
g th
roug
h th
e [U
rugu
ay
Riv
er]
Com
mis
sion
fo
r th
e ne
cess
ary
mea
sure
s to
pre
serv
e th
e ec
olog
ical
bal
ance
of t
he ri
ver”
(par
agra
ph 1
87
of th
e Ju
dgm
ent).
112.
Th
e ex
pres
sion
“to
ens
ure”
is
ofte
n us
ed i
n in
tern
atio
nal
lega
l in
stru
men
ts t
o re
fer
to o
blig
atio
ns i
n re
spec
t of
whi
ch,
whi
le i
t is
not
co
nsid
ered
reas
onab
le to
mak
e a
Sta
te li
able
for e
ach
and
ever
y vi
olat
ion
com
mitt
ed b
y pe
rson
s un
der
its ju
risdi
ctio
n, it
is e
qual
ly n
ot c
onsi
dere
d sa
tisfa
ctor
y to
rely
on
mer
e ap
plic
atio
n of
the
prin
cipl
e th
at th
e co
nduc
t of
priv
ate
pers
ons
or
entit
ies
is
not
attri
buta
ble
to
the
Sta
te
unde
r in
tern
atio
nal l
aw (s
ee IL
C A
rticl
es o
n S
tate
Res
pons
ibili
ty, C
omm
enta
ry to
ar
ticle
8, p
arag
raph
1).
(R
espo
nsib
ilitie
s an
d ob
ligat
ions
of S
tate
s w
ith r
espe
ct to
act
iviti
es in
the
Are
a, A
dvis
ory
Opi
nion
, 1 F
ebru
ary
2011
, ITL
OS
Rep
orts
201
1, p
. 10,
at
p. 4
1, p
aras
. 110
-112
)
129.
In
the
case
of I
UU
fish
ing
in th
e ex
clus
ive
econ
omic
zon
es o
f the
SR
FC
Mem
ber S
tate
s, th
e ob
ligat
ion
of a
flag
Sta
te n
ot p
arty
to th
e M
CA
Con
vent
ion
to
ensu
re th
at v
esse
ls fl
ying
its
flag
are
not i
nvol
ved
in IU
U fi
shin
g is
als
o an
obl
igat
ion
“of c
ondu
ct”.
In o
ther
wor
ds, a
s st
ated
in th
e A
dvis
ory
Opi
nion
of t
he S
eabe
d
Dis
pute
s C
ham
ber,
this
is a
n ob
ligat
ion
“to d
eplo
y ad
equa
te m
eans
, to
exer
cise
bes
t
poss
ible
effo
rts, t
o do
the
utm
ost”
to p
reve
nt IU
U fi
shin
g by
shi
ps fl
ying
its
flag.
How
ever
, as
an o
blig
atio
n “o
f con
duct
” thi
s is
a “d
ue d
iligen
ce o
blig
atio
n”, n
ot a
n
38
oblig
atio
n “o
f res
ult”.
Thi
s m
eans
that
this
is n
ot a
n ob
ligat
ion
of th
e fla
g S
tate
to
achi
eve
com
plia
nce
by fi
shin
g ve
ssel
s fly
ing
its fl
ag in
eac
h ca
se w
ith th
e
requ
irem
ent n
ot to
eng
age
in IU
U fi
shin
g in
the
excl
usiv
e ec
onom
ic z
ones
of t
he
SR
FC M
embe
r Sta
tes.
The
flag
Sta
te is
und
er th
e “d
ue d
ilige
nce
oblig
atio
n” to
take
all n
eces
sary
mea
sure
s to
ens
ure
com
plia
nce
and
to p
reve
nt IU
U fi
shin
g by
fish
ing
vess
els
flyin
g its
flag
.
130.
Th
e Tr
ibun
al w
ill no
w a
ddre
ss th
e qu
estio
n of
wha
t con
stitu
tes
the
“due
dilig
ence
obl
igat
ion”
of t
he fl
ag S
tate
in th
e pr
esen
t cas
e.
131.
A
s to
the
mea
ning
of “
due
dilig
ence
obl
igat
ion”
, the
Sea
bed
Dis
pute
s
Cha
mbe
r ref
erre
d to
the
follo
win
g cl
arifi
catio
n pr
ovid
ed b
y th
e IC
J in
the
Pul
p M
ills
on th
e R
iver
Uru
guay
cas
e:
It is
an
oblig
atio
n w
hich
ent
ails
not
onl
y th
e ad
optio
n of
app
ropr
iate
rul
es
and
mea
sure
s, b
ut a
lso
a ce
rtain
leve
l of
vigi
lanc
e in
the
ir en
forc
emen
t an
d th
e ex
erci
se o
f adm
inis
trativ
e co
ntro
l app
licab
le to
pub
lic a
nd p
rivat
e op
erat
ors,
su
ch
as
the
mon
itorin
g of
ac
tiviti
es
unde
rtake
n by
su
ch
oper
ator
s, to
saf
egua
rd th
e rig
hts
of th
e ot
her
party
. The
res
pons
ibili
ty o
f a
party
to
the
1975
Sta
tute
wou
ld t
here
fore
be
enga
ged
if it
was
sho
wn
that
it h
ad fa
iled
to a
ct d
ilige
ntly
and
thus
take
all
appr
opria
te m
easu
res
to
enfo
rce
its r
elev
ant
regu
latio
ns o
n a
publ
ic o
r pr
ivat
e op
erat
or u
nder
its
juris
dict
ion.
(P
ulp
Mill
s on
the
Riv
er U
rugu
ay (A
rgen
tina
v.U
rugu
ay),
Judg
men
t, I.C
.J.
Rep
orts
201
0, p
. 14,
at p
. 79,
par
a. 1
97)
132.
Th
e S
eabe
d D
ispu
tes
Cha
mbe
r in
its A
dvis
ory
Opi
nion
poi
nted
out
that
:
The
cont
ent o
f “du
e di
ligen
ce”
oblig
atio
ns m
ay n
ot e
asily
be
desc
ribed
in
prec
ise
term
s. A
mon
g th
e fa
ctor
s th
at m
ake
such
a d
escr
iptio
n di
fficu
lt is
th
e fa
ct th
at “d
ue d
ilige
nce”
is a
var
iabl
e co
ncep
t. It
may
cha
nge
over
tim
e as
mea
sure
s co
nsid
ered
suf
ficie
ntly
dili
gent
at
a ce
rtain
mom
ent
may
be
com
e no
t di
ligen
t en
ough
in
light
, fo
r in
stan
ce,
of n
ew s
cien
tific
or
tech
nolo
gica
l kn
owle
dge.
It
may
als
o ch
ange
in
rela
tion
to t
he r
isks
in
volv
ed in
the
activ
ity. .
.. Th
e st
anda
rd o
f due
dili
genc
e ha
s to
be
mor
e se
vere
for t
he ri
skie
r act
iviti
es.
(Res
pons
ibili
ties
and
oblig
atio
ns o
f Sta
tes
with
res
pect
to a
ctiv
ities
in th
e A
rea,
Adv
isor
y O
pini
on, 1
Feb
ruar
y 20
11, I
TLO
S R
epor
ts 2
011,
p. 1
0, a
t p.
43,
par
a. 1
17)
133.
Th
e Tr
ibun
al h
olds
that
, in
the
pres
ent c
ase,
the
Con
vent
ion
is th
e ke
y
inst
rum
ent w
hich
pro
vide
s gu
idan
ce re
gard
ing
the
cont
ent o
f the
mea
sure
s th
at n
eed
to b
e ta
ken
by th
e fla
g S
tate
in o
rder
to e
nsur
e co
mpl
ianc
e w
ith th
e “d
ue d
iligen
ce”
39
oblig
atio
n to
pre
vent
IUU
fish
ing
by v
esse
ls fl
ying
its
flag
in th
e ex
clus
ive
econ
omic
zone
s of
the
SR
FC M
embe
r Sta
tes.
134.
Th
e Tr
ibun
al o
bser
ves
that
, und
er a
rticl
es 5
8, p
arag
raph
3, a
nd 6
2,
para
grap
h 4,
of t
he C
onve
ntio
n, th
e fla
g S
tate
has
the
oblig
atio
n to
take
nec
essa
ry
mea
sure
s, in
clud
ing
thos
e of
enf
orce
men
t, to
ens
ure
com
plia
nce
by v
esse
ls fl
ying
its
flag
with
the
law
s an
d re
gula
tions
ado
pted
by
the
SR
FC M
embe
r Sta
tes
in
acco
rdan
ce w
ith th
e pr
ovis
ions
of t
he C
onve
ntio
n.
135.
Th
e af
orem
entio
ned
prov
isio
ns o
f the
Con
vent
ion
also
impo
se th
e ob
ligat
ion
on th
e fla
g S
tate
to a
dopt
the
nece
ssar
y m
easu
res
proh
ibiti
ng it
s ve
ssel
s fro
m fi
shin
g
in th
e ex
clus
ive
econ
omic
zon
es o
f the
SR
FC M
embe
r Sta
tes,
unl
ess
so a
utho
rized
by th
e S
RFC
Mem
ber S
tate
s.
136.
P
ursu
ant t
o ar
ticle
s 19
2 an
d 19
3 of
the
Con
vent
ion,
the
flag
Sta
te h
as th
e
oblig
atio
n to
take
the
nece
ssar
y m
easu
res
to e
nsur
e th
at v
esse
ls fl
ying
its
flag
com
ply
with
the
prot
ectio
n an
d pr
eser
vatio
n m
easu
res
adop
ted
by th
e S
RFC
Mem
ber S
tate
s.
137.
A
rticl
e 94
, par
agra
phs
1 an
d 2,
of t
he C
onve
ntio
n pr
ovid
es th
at th
e fla
g S
tate
is u
nder
an
oblig
atio
n to
exe
rcis
e ef
fect
ivel
y its
juris
dict
ion
and
cont
rol i
n
adm
inis
trativ
e m
atte
rs o
ver f
ishi
ng v
esse
ls fl
ying
its
flag,
by
ensu
ring,
in p
artic
ular
,
that
suc
h ve
ssel
s ar
e pr
oper
ly m
arke
d.
138.
W
hile
the
natu
re o
f the
law
s, re
gula
tions
and
mea
sure
s th
at a
re to
be
adop
ted
by th
e fla
g S
tate
is le
ft to
be
dete
rmin
ed b
y ea
ch fl
ag S
tate
in a
ccor
danc
e w
ith it
s
lega
l sys
tem
, the
flag
Sta
te n
ever
thel
ess
has
the
oblig
atio
n to
incl
ude
in th
em
enfo
rcem
ent m
echa
nism
s to
mon
itor a
nd s
ecur
e co
mpl
ianc
e w
ith th
ese
law
s an
d
regu
latio
ns. S
anct
ions
app
licab
le to
invo
lvem
ent i
n IU
U fi
shin
g ac
tiviti
es m
ust b
e
suffi
cien
t to
dete
r vio
latio
ns a
nd to
dep
rive
offe
nder
s of
the
bene
fits
accr
uing
from
thei
r IU
U fi
shin
g ac
tiviti
es.
139.
In
acc
orda
nce
with
arti
cle
94, p
arag
raph
6, o
f the
Con
vent
ion,
“[a]
Sta
te w
hich
has
clea
rgro
unds
tobe
lieve
that
prop
erju
risdi
ctio
nan
dco
ntro
lwith
resp
ectt
oa
ship
40
have
not
bee
n ex
erci
sed
may
repo
rt th
e fa
cts
to th
e fla
g S
tate
” and
“upo
n re
ceiv
ing
such
a re
port,
the
flag
Sta
te s
hall
inve
stig
ate
the
mat
ter a
nd, i
f app
ropr
iate
, tak
e an
y
actio
n ne
cess
ary
to re
med
y th
e si
tuat
ion.
” In
the
view
of t
he T
ribun
al, t
his
oblig
atio
n
equa
lly a
pplie
s to
a fl
ag S
tate
who
se s
hips
are
alle
ged
to h
ave
been
invo
lved
in IU
U
fishi
ng w
hen
such
alle
gatio
ns h
ave
been
repo
rted
to it
by
the
coas
tal S
tate
conc
erne
d. T
he fl
ag S
tate
is th
en u
nder
an
oblig
atio
n to
inve
stig
ate
the
mat
ter a
nd, i
f
appr
opria
te, t
ake
any
actio
n ne
cess
ary
to re
med
y th
e si
tuat
ion
as w
ell a
s in
form
the
repo
rting
Sta
te o
f tha
t act
ion.
The
act
ion
to b
e ta
ken
by th
e fla
g S
tate
is w
ithou
t
prej
udic
e to
the
right
s of
the
coas
tal S
tate
to ta
ke m
easu
res
purs
uant
to a
rticl
e 73
of
the
Con
vent
ion.
140.
Th
e Tr
ibun
al w
ishe
s to
reca
ll th
at, a
s st
ated
in th
e M
OX
Pla
nt C
ase,
the
duty
to
coop
erat
e is
a f
unda
men
tal
prin
cipl
e in
the
pre
vent
ion
of
pollu
tion
of th
e m
arin
e en
viro
nmen
t und
er P
art X
II of
the
Con
vent
ion
and
gene
ral i
nter
natio
nal l
aw …
(M
OX
Pla
nt (
Irela
nd v
. Uni
ted
Kin
gdom
), P
rovi
sion
al M
easu
res,
Ord
er o
f 3
Dec
embe
r 200
1, IT
LOS
Rep
orts
200
1, p
. 95,
at p
. 110
, par
a. 8
2)
The
Trib
unal
hol
ds th
at th
is o
blig
atio
n ex
tend
s al
so to
cas
es o
f alle
ged
IUU
fish
ing
activ
ities
.
VI.
Que
stio
n 2
141.
Th
e se
cond
que
stio
n su
bmitt
ed to
the
Trib
unal
is a
s fo
llow
s:
To w
hat e
xten
t sha
ll th
e fla
g S
tate
be
held
liab
le fo
r IU
U fi
shin
g ac
tiviti
es
cond
ucte
d by
ves
sels
sai
ling
unde
r its
flag
?
142.
Th
e Tr
ibun
al w
ishe
s to
not
e th
at n
eith
er th
e C
onve
ntio
n no
r the
MC
A
Con
vent
ion
prov
ides
gui
danc
e on
the
issu
e of
liab
ility
of th
e fla
g S
tate
for I
UU
fish
ing
activ
ities
con
duct
ed b
y ve
ssel
s un
der i
ts fl
ag.
41
143.
P
ursu
ant t
o ar
ticle
293
of t
he C
onve
ntio
n, th
e Tr
ibun
al, i
n ex
amin
ing
this
ques
tion,
will
ther
efor
e be
gui
ded
by re
leva
nt ru
les
of in
tern
atio
nal l
aw o
n
resp
onsi
bilit
y of
Sta
tes
for i
nter
natio
nally
wro
ngfu
l act
s.
144.
In
ligh
t of i
nter
natio
nal j
uris
prud
ence
, inc
ludi
ng it
s ow
n, th
e Tr
ibun
al fi
nds
that
the
follo
win
g ru
les
refle
cted
in th
e D
raft
Arti
cles
of t
he In
tern
atio
nal L
aw C
omm
issi
on
on R
espo
nsib
ility
of S
tate
s fo
r Int
erna
tiona
lly W
rong
ful A
cts
(her
eina
fter “
the
ILC
Dra
ft A
rticl
es o
n S
tate
Res
pons
ibilit
y”) a
re th
e ru
les
of g
ener
al in
tern
atio
nal l
aw
rele
vant
to th
e se
cond
que
stio
n:
(i)
Eve
ry in
tern
atio
nally
wro
ngfu
l act
of a
Sta
te e
ntai
ls th
e in
tern
atio
nal
resp
onsi
bilit
y of
that
Sta
te
(arti
cle
1 of
the
ILC
Dra
ft A
rticl
es o
n S
tate
Res
pons
ibilit
y);
(ii)
Ther
e is
an
inte
rnat
iona
lly w
rong
ful a
ct o
f a S
tate
whe
n co
nduc
t con
sist
ing
of
an a
ctio
n or
om
issi
on (a
) is
attri
buta
ble
to th
e S
tate
und
er in
tern
atio
nal l
aw,
and
(b) c
onst
itute
s a
brea
ch o
f an
inte
rnat
iona
l obl
igat
ion
of th
e S
tate
(a
rticl
e 2
of th
e IL
C D
raft
Arti
cles
on
Sta
te R
espo
nsib
ility)
; and
(iii)
The
resp
onsi
ble
Sta
te is
und
er a
n ob
ligat
ion
to m
ake
full
repa
ratio
n fo
r the
inju
ry c
ause
d by
the
inte
rnat
iona
lly w
rong
ful a
ct
(a
rticl
e 31
, par
agra
ph 1
, of t
he IL
C D
raft
Arti
cles
on
Sta
te R
espo
nsib
ility)
.
145.
In
ans
wer
ing
the
seco
nd q
uest
ion,
the
Trib
unal
find
s it
appr
opria
te to
cla
rify
the
mea
ning
of t
he te
rm “l
iabl
e” re
ferr
ed to
in th
is q
uest
ion.
The
Trib
unal
obs
erve
s
that
, in
the
cont
ext o
f Sta
te re
spon
sibi
lity,
the
Eng
lish
term
“lia
bilit
y” re
fers
to th
e
seco
ndar
y ob
ligat
ion,
nam
ely,
the
cons
eque
nces
of a
bre
ach
of th
e pr
imar
y
oblig
atio
n. W
hile
the
Fren
ch te
rm “r
espo
nsab
ilité
” gen
eral
ly re
fers
to b
oth
prim
ary
and
seco
ndar
y ob
ligat
ions
, for
the
purp
oses
of t
he s
econ
d an
d th
ird q
uest
ions
, the
Trib
unal
wis
hes
to c
larif
y th
at th
e Fr
ench
term
“res
pons
abili
té” i
s us
ed to
cov
er
seco
ndar
y ob
ligat
ions
(see
Res
pons
ibili
ties
and
oblig
atio
ns o
f Sta
tes
with
resp
ect t
o
activ
ities
in th
e A
rea,
Adv
isor
y O
pini
on, 1
Feb
ruar
y 20
11, I
TLO
S R
epor
ts 2
011,
p. 1
0,
at p
p. 3
0-31
, par
as. 6
4-71
).
146.
In
the
pres
ent c
ase,
the
liabi
lity
of th
e fla
g S
tate
doe
s no
t aris
e fro
m a
failu
re
ofve
ssel
sfly
ing
itsfla
gto
com
ply
with
the
law
san
dre
gula
tions
ofth
eS
RFC
42
Mem
ber S
tate
s co
ncer
ning
IUU
fish
ing
activ
ities
in th
eir e
xclu
sive
eco
nom
ic z
ones
,
as th
e vi
olat
ion
of s
uch
law
s an
d re
gula
tions
by
vess
els
is n
ot p
er s
e at
tribu
tabl
e to
the
flag
Sta
te. T
he li
abilit
y of
the
flag
Sta
te a
rises
from
its
failu
re to
com
ply
with
its
“due
dilig
ence
” obl
igat
ions
con
cern
ing
IUU
fish
ing
activ
ities
con
duct
ed b
y ve
ssel
s
flyin
g its
flag
in th
e ex
clus
ive
econ
omic
zon
es o
f the
SR
FC M
embe
r Sta
tes.
147.
Th
e Tr
ibun
al is
of t
he v
iew
that
the
SR
FC M
embe
r Sta
tes
may
hol
d lia
ble
the
flag
Sta
te o
f a v
esse
l con
duct
ing
IUU
fish
ing
activ
ities
in th
eir e
xclu
sive
eco
nom
ic
zone
s fo
r a b
reac
h, a
ttrib
utab
le to
the
flag
Sta
te, o
f its
inte
rnat
iona
l obl
igat
ions
refe
rred
to in
the
repl
y to
the
first
que
stio
n (s
ee p
arag
raph
s 10
9 to
140
; see
als
o
M/V
“SA
IGA
” (N
o. 2
) Cas
e (S
aint
Vin
cent
and
the
Gre
nadi
nes
v. G
uine
a), J
udgm
ent,
ITLO
S R
epor
ts 1
999,
p. 1
0, a
t p. 6
5, p
ara.
170
).
148.
H
owev
er, t
he fl
ag S
tate
is n
ot li
able
if it
has
take
n al
l nec
essa
ry a
nd
appr
opria
te m
easu
res
to m
eet i
ts “d
ue d
ilige
nce”
obl
igat
ions
to e
nsur
e th
at v
esse
ls
flyin
g its
flag
do
not c
ondu
ct IU
U fi
shin
g ac
tiviti
es in
the
excl
usiv
e ec
onom
ic z
ones
of
the
SR
FC M
embe
r Sta
tes.
149.
Th
e m
eani
ng o
f “du
e di
ligen
ce” o
blig
atio
ns h
as b
een
expl
aine
d in
para
grap
hs 1
31 a
nd 1
32.
150.
Th
e Tr
ibun
al a
lso
wis
hes
to a
ddre
ss th
e is
sue
as to
whe
ther
isol
ated
IUU
fishi
ng a
ctiv
ities
or o
nly
a re
peat
ed p
atte
rn o
f suc
h ac
tiviti
es w
ould
ent
ail a
bre
ach
of
“due
dilig
ence
” obl
igat
ions
of t
he fl
ag S
tate
. As
expl
aine
d in
par
agra
phs
146
to 1
48,
the
Trib
unal
find
s th
at a
bre
ach
of “d
ue d
ilige
nce”
obl
igat
ions
of a
flag
Sta
te a
rises
if
it ha
s no
t tak
en a
ll ne
cess
ary
and
appr
opria
te m
easu
res
to m
eet i
ts o
blig
atio
ns to
ensu
re th
at v
esse
ls fl
ying
its
flag
do n
ot c
ondu
ct IU
U fi
shin
g ac
tiviti
es in
the
excl
usiv
e ec
onom
ic z
ones
of t
he S
RFC
Mem
ber S
tate
s. T
here
fore
, the
freq
uenc
y of
IUU
fish
ing
activ
ities
by
vess
els
in th
e ex
clus
ive
econ
omic
zon
es o
f the
SR
FC
Mem
ber S
tate
s is
not
rele
vant
to th
e is
sue
as to
whe
ther
ther
e is
a b
reac
h of
“due
dilig
ence
” obl
igat
ions
by
the
flag
Sta
te.
50
179.
Th
e Tr
ibun
al re
calls
that
its
juris
dict
ion
in th
is c
ase
is li
mite
d to
the
excl
usiv
e
econ
omic
zon
es o
f the
SR
FC M
embe
r Sta
tes.
The
refo
re, t
he ri
ghts
and
obl
igat
ions
of th
e co
asta
l Sta
te re
ferr
ed to
in th
e fo
urth
que
stio
n ar
e to
be
cons
trued
as
right
s
and
oblig
atio
ns o
f the
SR
FC M
embe
r Sta
tes.
180.
Th
e Tr
ibun
al o
bser
ves
that
the
Con
vent
ion
cont
ains
sev
eral
pro
visi
ons,
nam
ely
artic
les
61, 6
2, 7
3, 1
92 a
nd 1
93, c
once
rnin
g ge
nera
l rig
hts
and
oblig
atio
ns o
f
the
coas
tal S
tate
in e
nsur
ing
the
cons
erva
tion
and
man
agem
ent o
f liv
ing
reso
urce
s
in it
s ex
clus
ive
econ
omic
zon
e.
181.
Th
e Tr
ibun
al n
otes
, how
ever
, tha
t the
four
th q
uest
ion
addr
esse
s sp
ecifi
cally
the
right
s an
d ob
ligat
ions
of t
he S
RFC
Mem
ber S
tate
s in
ens
urin
g th
e su
stai
nabl
e
man
agem
ent o
f sha
red
stoc
ks a
nd s
tock
s of
com
mon
inte
rest
, esp
ecia
lly s
mal
l
pela
gic
spec
ies
and
tuna
.
182.
Th
e fo
cus
of th
e fo
urth
que
stio
n is
ther
efor
e on
the
right
s an
d ob
ligat
ions
of
the
SR
FC M
embe
r Sta
tes
in e
nsur
ing
the
sust
aina
ble
man
agem
ent o
f the
fish
sto
cks
in th
eir e
xclu
sive
eco
nom
ic z
ones
whe
n su
ch fi
sh s
tock
s ar
e sh
ared
with
oth
er S
RFC
Mem
ber S
tate
s or
bet
wee
n th
em a
nd n
on-M
embe
r Sta
tes
fishi
ng fo
r suc
h st
ocks
in
an a
rea
beyo
nd a
nd a
djac
ent t
o th
ose
zone
s.
183.
Th
e Tr
ibun
al w
ishe
s to
cla
rify
the
mea
ning
of t
he e
xpre
ssio
ns “s
hare
d st
ocks
”
and
“sto
cks
of c
omm
on in
tere
st”.
184.
Th
e Tr
ibun
al o
bser
ves
that
thes
e ex
pres
sion
s ar
e no
t fou
nd in
the
Con
vent
ion.
How
ever
, the
exp
ress
ion
“sha
red
stoc
ks” i
s de
fined
in a
rticl
e 2,
par
agra
ph 1
2, o
f the
MC
A C
onve
ntio
n as
“sto
cks
occu
rrin
g w
ithin
the
excl
usiv
e ec
onom
ic z
ones
of t
wo
or
mor
e co
asta
l sta
tes
or b
oth
with
in th
e ex
clus
ive
econ
omic
zon
e an
d in
an
area
beyo
nd a
nd a
djac
ent t
o it.
”
185.
Th
e Tr
ibun
al o
bser
ves
that
ther
e is
no
esta
blis
hed
defin
ition
of “
stoc
ks o
f
com
mon
inte
rest
”. H
owev
er, t
he T
ribun
al n
otes
that
, in
its s
tate
men
t mad
e du
ring
the
51
oral
pro
ceed
ings
, the
SR
FC p
rovi
ded
the
follo
win
g ex
plan
atio
n w
ith re
spec
t to
the
mea
ning
of t
he e
xpre
ssio
n “s
tock
s of
com
mon
inte
rest
”:
In t
he c
entra
l ea
ster
n A
tlant
ic,
a nu
mbe
r of
mig
rato
ry p
elag
ic s
peci
es
mov
e be
twee
n th
e ex
clus
ive
econ
omic
zo
nes
of
seve
ral
Sta
tes
(“tra
nsbo
unda
ry s
tock
s” o
r “s
tock
s of
com
mon
inte
rest
”) a
nd/o
r be
twee
n th
e ex
clus
ive
econ
omic
zo
nes
and
the
wat
ers
beyo
nd
(“st
radd
ling
stoc
ks”)
. Th
us,
thes
e ar
e st
ocks
w
hich
ar
e sh
ared
be
twee
n tw
o ne
ighb
ourin
g co
asta
l Sta
tes,
two
non-
neig
hbou
ring
coas
tal S
tate
s lo
cate
d on
eith
er s
ide
of a
gul
f or
an o
cean
, or
a co
asta
l Sta
te a
nd th
e fla
g S
tate
of
the
vess
el fi
shin
g th
e st
ock.
186.
A
s th
e de
finiti
on o
f “sh
ared
sto
cks”
con
tain
ed in
arti
cle
2, p
arag
raph
12,
of t
he
MC
A C
onve
ntio
n ap
plie
s to
bot
h si
tuat
ions
des
crib
ed in
par
agra
phs
1 an
d 2
of
artic
le 6
3 of
the
Con
vent
ion,
the
Trib
unal
con
side
rs th
at th
is e
xpre
ssio
n as
wel
l as
the
expr
essi
on “s
tock
s of
com
mon
inte
rest
” cov
er a
ll st
ocks
add
ress
ed in
that
arti
cle
of th
e C
onve
ntio
n.
187.
Th
e Tr
ibun
al n
ow w
ishe
s to
cla
rify
its u
nder
stan
ding
of t
he e
xpre
ssio
n
“sus
tain
able
man
agem
ent”.
188.
Th
e Tr
ibun
al o
bser
ves
that
the
Con
vent
ion
does
not
def
ine
the
expr
essi
on
“sus
tain
able
man
agem
ent”.
Arti
cle
63 o
f the
Con
vent
ion
as s
uch
does
not
add
ress
the
issu
e of
coo
pera
tion
with
resp
ect t
o m
easu
res
nece
ssar
y to
ens
ure
the
sust
aina
ble
man
agem
ent o
f sha
red
stoc
ks. T
his
artic
le ra
ther
dea
ls w
ith c
oope
ratio
n
rega
rdin
g m
easu
res
nece
ssar
y to
coo
rdin
ate
and
ensu
re th
e “c
onse
rvat
ion
and
deve
lopm
ent o
f suc
h st
ocks
” whe
n th
ey o
ccur
with
in th
e ex
clus
ive
econ
omic
zon
es
of tw
o or
mor
e S
tate
s, a
nd c
oope
ratio
n re
gard
ing
mea
sure
s ne
cess
ary
for t
he
“con
serv
atio
n of
thes
e st
ocks
in th
e ad
jace
nt a
rea”
whe
n th
ey “o
ccur
bot
h w
ithin
the
excl
usiv
e ec
onom
ic z
one
and
in a
n ar
ea b
eyon
d an
d ad
jace
nt to
the
zone
”.
189.
Th
e Tr
ibun
al, h
owev
er, c
onsi
ders
that
arti
cle
61 o
f the
Con
vent
ion,
whi
ch s
ets
out t
he b
asic
fram
ewor
k co
ncer
ning
the
cons
erva
tion
and
man
agem
ent o
f the
livi
ng
reso
urce
s in
the
excl
usiv
e ec
onom
ic z
one,
pro
vide
s gu
idan
ce a
s to
the
mea
ning
of
“sus
tain
able
man
agem
ent”.
In th
is c
onne
ctio
n pa
ragr
aphs
2, 3
and
4 o
f thi
s ar
ticle
are
of p
artic
ular
rele
vanc
e; th
ey re
ad a
s fo
llow
s:
52
Arti
cle
61
Con
serv
atio
n of
the
livin
g re
sour
ces
2.
The
coas
tal
Sta
te,
taki
ng i
nto
acco
unt
the
best
sci
entif
ic e
vide
nce
avai
labl
e to
it, s
hall
ensu
re th
roug
h pr
oper
con
serv
atio
n an
d m
anag
emen
t m
easu
res
that
the
mai
nten
ance
of
the
livin
g re
sour
ces
in t
he e
xclu
sive
ec
onom
ic z
one
is n
ot e
ndan
gere
d by
ove
r-ex
ploi
tatio
n. A
s ap
prop
riate
, th
e co
asta
l S
tate
and
com
pete
nt i
nter
natio
nal
orga
niza
tions
, w
heth
er
subr
egio
nal,
regi
onal
or g
loba
l, sh
all c
oope
rate
to th
is e
nd.
3.
Suc
h m
easu
res
shal
l al
so
be
desi
gned
to
m
aint
ain
or
rest
ore
popu
latio
ns
of
harv
este
d sp
ecie
s at
le
vels
w
hich
ca
n pr
oduc
e th
e m
axim
um s
usta
inab
le y
ield
, as
qua
lifie
d by
rel
evan
t en
viro
nmen
tal
and
econ
omic
fa
ctor
s,
incl
udin
g th
e ec
onom
ic
need
s of
co
asta
l fis
hing
co
mm
uniti
es a
nd t
he s
peci
al r
equi
rem
ents
of
deve
lopi
ng S
tate
s, a
nd
taki
ng i
nto
acco
unt
fishi
ng p
atte
rns,
the
int
erde
pend
ence
of
stoc
ks a
nd
any
gene
rally
rec
omm
ende
d in
tern
atio
nal
min
imum
sta
ndar
ds,
whe
ther
su
breg
iona
l, re
gion
al o
r glo
bal.
4.
In
taki
ng
such
m
easu
res
the
coas
tal
Sta
te
shal
l ta
ke
into
co
nsid
erat
ion
the
effe
cts
on s
peci
es a
ssoc
iate
d w
ith o
r de
pend
ent
upon
ha
rves
ted
spec
ies
with
a v
iew
to
mai
ntai
ning
or
rest
orin
g po
pula
tions
of
such
as
soci
ated
or
de
pend
ent
spec
ies
abov
e le
vels
at
w
hich
th
eir
repr
oduc
tion
may
bec
ome
serio
usly
thre
aten
ed.
190.
Th
e Tr
ibun
al o
bser
ves
that
the
ultim
ate
goal
of s
usta
inab
le m
anag
emen
t of
fish
stoc
ks is
to c
onse
rve
and
deve
lop
them
as
a vi
able
and
sus
tain
able
reso
urce
.
191.
The
Trib
unal
will
ther
efor
e co
nstru
e th
e ex
pres
sion
“sus
tain
able
man
agem
ent”
as u
sed
in th
e fo
urth
que
stio
n as
mea
ning
“con
serv
atio
n an
d de
velo
pmen
t”, a
s
refe
rred
to in
arti
cle
63, p
arag
raph
1, o
f the
Con
vent
ion.
192.
Th
e Tr
ibun
al w
ill no
w id
entif
y th
e rig
hts
and
oblig
atio
ns o
f the
SR
FC M
embe
r
Sta
tes
in e
nsur
ing
the
sust
aina
ble
man
agem
ent o
f sha
red
stoc
ks o
ccur
ring
with
in
thei
r exc
lusi
ve e
cono
mic
zon
es a
nd s
hare
d st
ocks
occ
urrin
g bo
th w
ithin
the
excl
usiv
e ec
onom
ic z
ones
of t
he S
RFC
Mem
ber S
tate
s an
d in
an
area
bey
ond
and
adja
cent
to th
ese
zone
s, e
spec
ially
sm
all p
elag
ic s
peci
es. T
he T
ribun
al w
ill fi
rst
exam
ine
the
appl
icab
le p
rovi
sion
s of
the
Con
vent
ion.
193.
In
the
view
of t
he T
ribun
al, t
hese
pro
visi
ons
are:
arti
cle
63, p
arag
raph
1, o
f the
Con
vent
ion,
on
the
sam
e st
ocks
or s
tock
s of
ass
ocia
ted
spec
ies
occu
rrin
g w
ithin
the
excl
usiv
e ec
onom
ic z
ones
of t
wo
or m
ore
coas
tal S
tate
s; p
arag
raph
2 o
f the
sam
e
artic
le o
n th
e sa
me
stoc
k or
sto
cks
of a
ssoc
iate
d sp
ecie
s oc
curr
ing
with
in th
e
53
excl
usiv
e ec
onom
ic z
one
and
in a
n ar
ea b
eyon
d an
d ad
jace
nt to
the
zone
; and
artic
le 6
4, p
arag
raph
1, o
f the
Con
vent
ion,
on
the
high
ly m
igra
tory
spe
cies
list
ed in
Ann
ex I
to th
e C
onve
ntio
n.
194.
A
rticl
e 63
of t
he C
onve
ntio
n, w
hich
rela
tes
to s
tock
s oc
curri
ng w
ithin
the
excl
usiv
e ec
onom
ic z
ones
of t
wo
or m
ore
coas
tal S
tate
s or
bot
h w
ithin
the
excl
usiv
e
econ
omic
zon
e an
d in
an
area
bey
ond
and
adja
cent
to it
, cov
ers
shar
ed s
tock
s as
defin
ed b
y ar
ticle
2, p
arag
raph
12,
of t
he M
CA
Con
vent
ion.
195.
A
rticl
e 63
, par
agra
ph 1
, of t
he C
onve
ntio
n re
ads
as fo
llow
s:
Whe
re t
he s
ame
stoc
k or
sto
cks
of a
ssoc
iate
d sp
ecie
s oc
cur
with
in t
he
excl
usiv
e ec
onom
ic z
ones
of
two
or m
ore
coas
tal
Sta
tes,
the
se S
tate
s sh
all s
eek,
eith
er d
irect
ly o
r th
roug
h ap
prop
riate
sub
regi
onal
or
regi
onal
or
gani
zatio
ns, t
o ag
ree
upon
the
mea
sure
s ne
cess
ary
to c
oord
inat
e an
d en
sure
th
e co
nser
vatio
n an
d de
velo
pmen
t of
su
ch
stoc
ks
with
out
prej
udic
e to
the
othe
r pro
visi
ons
of th
is P
art.
196.
A
rticl
e 63
, par
agra
ph 2
, of t
he C
onve
ntio
n re
ads
as fo
llow
s:
Whe
re th
e sa
me
stoc
k or
sto
cks
of a
ssoc
iate
d sp
ecie
s oc
cur
both
with
in
the
excl
usiv
e ec
onom
ic z
one
and
in a
n ar
ea b
eyon
d an
d ad
jace
nt to
the
zone
, th
e co
asta
l S
tate
and
the
Sta
tes
fishi
ng f
or s
uch
stoc
ks i
n th
e ad
jace
nt
area
sh
all
seek
, ei
ther
di
rect
ly
or
thro
ugh
appr
opria
te
subr
egio
nal
or
regi
onal
or
gani
zatio
ns,
to
agre
e up
on
the
mea
sure
s ne
cess
ary
for t
he c
onse
rvat
ion
of th
ese
stoc
ks in
the
adja
cent
are
a.
197.
Th
e Tr
ibun
al n
otes
that
arti
cle
63, p
arag
raph
1, o
f the
Con
vent
ion
esta
blis
hes
that
the
coas
tal S
tate
s co
ncer
ned
“sha
ll se
ek ..
. to
agre
e” o
n th
e ne
cess
ary
mea
sure
s to
coo
rdin
ate
and
ensu
re “c
onse
rvat
ion
and
deve
lopm
ent”
of s
hare
d
stoc
ks. W
hile
arti
cle
61 o
f the
Con
vent
ion
prov
ides
gui
danc
e re
gard
ing
“con
serv
atio
n”, t
he te
rm “d
evel
opm
ent”
need
s to
be
clar
ified
.
198.
Th
e Tr
ibun
al is
of t
he v
iew
that
the
term
“dev
elop
men
t of s
uch
stoc
ks” u
sed
in
artic
le 6
3, p
arag
raph
1, o
f the
Con
vent
ion
sugg
ests
that
thes
e st
ocks
sho
uld
be u
sed
as fi
sher
y re
sour
ces
with
in th
e fra
mew
ork
of a
sus
tain
able
fish
erie
s m
anag
emen
t
regi
me.
Thi
s m
ay in
clud
e th
e ex
ploi
tatio
n of
non
-exp
loite
d st
ocks
or a
n in
crea
se in
the
expl
oita
tion
of u
nder
-exp
loite
d st
ocks
thro
ugh
the
deve
lopm
ent o
f res
pons
ible
fishe
ries,
as
wel
l as
mor
e ef
fect
ive
fishe
ries
man
agem
ent s
chem
es to
ens
ure
the
54
long
-term
sus
tain
abilit
y of
exp
loite
d st
ocks
. Thi
s m
ay a
lso
incl
ude
stoc
k re
stor
atio
n,
guid
ed b
y th
e re
quire
men
t und
er a
rticl
e 61
of t
he C
onve
ntio
n th
at a
giv
en s
tock
is
not e
ndan
gere
d by
ove
r-ex
ploi
tatio
n, th
us p
rese
rvin
g it
as a
long
-term
via
ble
reso
urce
.
199.
A
rticl
e 63
, par
agra
ph 2
, of t
he C
onve
ntio
n es
tabl
ishe
s a
coop
erat
ion
regi
me
betw
een
the
coas
tal S
tate
and
the
Sta
tes
fishi
ng fo
r the
sam
e st
ocks
and
sto
cks
of
asso
ciat
ed s
peci
es w
ith a
vie
w to
agr
eein
g on
mea
sure
s ne
cess
ary
for t
he
cons
erva
tion
of th
ese
stoc
ks in
the
adja
cent
are
a.
200.
S
ince
the
Trib
unal
has
juris
dict
ion
to e
nter
tain
the
Req
uest
onl
y in
so
far a
s it
rela
tes
to th
e ex
clus
ive
econ
omic
zon
es o
f the
SR
FC M
embe
r Sta
tes,
arti
cle
63,
para
grap
h 2,
of t
he C
onve
ntio
n, a
s fa
r as
it re
late
s to
“Sta
tes
fishi
ng fo
r suc
h st
ocks
in th
e ad
jace
nt a
rea”
, is
not a
pplic
able
to th
e ex
clus
ive
econ
omic
zon
es o
f the
SR
FC
Mem
ber S
tate
s.
201.
W
hile
arti
cle
63, p
arag
raph
2, o
f the
Con
vent
ion
does
not
app
ly to
the
excl
usiv
e ec
onom
ic z
ones
of t
he S
RFC
Mem
ber S
tate
s, th
e pa
rt of
the
stra
ddlin
g
stoc
ks th
at o
ccur
s w
ithin
thes
e zo
nes
is n
ot le
ft un
prot
ecte
d. T
hese
stra
ddlin
g st
ocks
are
subj
ect t
o th
e co
oper
atio
n re
gim
e of
arti
cle
63, p
arag
raph
1, o
f the
Con
vent
ion,
as th
ey o
ccur
with
in th
e ex
clus
ive
econ
omic
zon
es o
f the
SR
FC M
embe
r Sta
tes.
202.
Th
e re
fere
nce
to tu
na in
the
four
th q
uest
ion
nece
ssar
ily in
voke
s th
e pr
ovis
ion
cont
aine
d in
arti
cle
64, p
arag
raph
1, o
f the
Con
vent
ion,
whi
ch re
ads:
The
coas
tal S
tate
and
oth
er S
tate
s w
hose
nat
iona
ls fi
sh in
the
regi
on fo
r th
e hi
ghly
mig
rato
ry s
peci
es li
sted
in A
nnex
I s
hall
coop
erat
e di
rect
ly o
r th
roug
h ap
prop
riate
int
erna
tiona
l or
gani
zatio
ns w
ith a
vie
w t
o en
surin
g co
nser
vatio
n an
d pr
omot
ing
the
obje
ctiv
e of
opt
imum
util
izat
ion
of s
uch
spec
ies
thro
ugho
ut t
he r
egio
n, b
oth
with
in a
nd b
eyon
d th
e ex
clus
ive
econ
omic
zo
ne.
In
regi
ons
for
whi
ch
no
appr
opria
te
inte
rnat
iona
l or
gani
zatio
ns e
xist
s, th
e co
asta
l Sta
te a
nd o
ther
Sta
tes
who
se n
atio
nals
ha
rves
t the
se s
peci
es in
the
regi
on s
hall
coop
erat
e to
est
ablis
h su
ch a
n or
gani
zatio
n an
d pa
rtici
pate
in it
s w
ork.
203.
Th
is p
rovi
sion
est
ablis
hes
the
coop
erat
ion
regi
me
on c
onse
rvat
ion
of th
e
high
ly m
igra
tory
spe
cies
list
ed in
Ann
ex I
to th
e C
onve
ntio
n. A
s tu
na s
tock
s ar
e
International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea
The M/V “Virginia G.” Case
(Panama/Guinea-Bissau)
Judgment of 14 April 2014
ITLOS Reports, vol. 14 (2014), pp. 25-27, 51-68; paras. 55-63, 161-236
INTE
RN
ATI
ON
AL
TRIB
UN
AL
FOR
TH
E LA
W O
F TH
E SE
AYE
AR
201
4
14 A
pril
2014
No.
19
List
of c
ases
:
THE
M/V
“VI
RG
INIA
G”
CA
SE
(PA
NA
MA
/GU
INE
A-B
ISS
AU
)
JUD
GM
ENT
B-Pa
nam
a is
to
pay
in f
avou
rof
Gui
nea-
Biss
au c
ompe
nsat
ion
for
dam
ages
and
loss
es c
ause
d as
a r
esul
t of t
he a
fore
men
tione
d vi
olat
ion,
in
the
amou
nt q
uant
ified
and
cla
imed
by
Gui
nea-
Biss
au in
Par
agra
ph 2
66
of i
ts C
ount
er-M
emor
ial,
or i
n an
am
ount
dee
med
app
ropr
iate
by
the
Inte
rnat
iona
l Trib
unal
.
C-
Pana
ma
is t
o re
imbu
rse
all
lega
l an
d ot
her
cost
s th
e R
epub
lic o
f G
uine
a-Bi
ssau
has
incu
rred
with
this
cas
e.
III.
Fact
ual b
ackg
roun
d
55.
The
M/V
Virg
inia
Gw
as a
n oi
l tan
ker f
lyin
g th
e fla
g of
Pan
ama
at th
e tim
e of
its a
rrest
on
21 A
ugus
t200
9.It
held
a S
tatu
tory
Cer
tific
ate
of R
egis
ter i
ssue
d by
the
Pan
ama
Mar
itim
e A
utho
rity
on 2
3 A
ugus
t 200
7 an
d va
lid u
ntil
16 N
ovem
ber 2
011.
A
furth
er S
tatu
tory
Cer
tific
ate
of R
egis
ter w
as is
sued
for t
he v
esse
l by
the
Pana
ma
Mar
itim
e Au
thor
ity o
n 5
Oct
ober
201
1 an
d is
val
id u
ntil
16 N
ovem
ber 2
016.
56.
Acc
ordi
ng to
Pan
ama,
the
M/V
Virg
inia
Gis
ow
ned
by P
enn
Lila
c Tr
adin
g S
.A.
(Pen
n Li
lac)
, a c
ompa
ny in
corp
orat
ed in
Pan
ama
in 1
998.
In J
anua
ry 2
000,
Pen
n
Lila
c bo
ught
the
vess
el a
nd in
Jan
uary
200
2 co
nclu
ded
an a
genc
y co
mm
issi
on
agre
emen
t with
Geb
aspe
SL
(Geb
aspe
), a
Spa
nish
com
pany
act
ing
as in
term
edia
ry
betw
een
fuel
sup
plie
rs a
nd o
wne
rs o
f com
mer
cial
fish
ing
vess
els.
In 2
009,
the
vess
el w
as c
harte
red
out t
o Lo
tus
Fede
ratio
n (L
otus
), an
Iris
h co
mpa
ny s
ellin
g an
d
supp
lyin
g ga
s oi
l to
fishi
ng v
esse
ls, a
nd re
mai
ned
char
tere
d ou
t to
that
com
pany
at
the
time
of th
e ar
rest
.
57.
At t
he ti
me
of th
e ar
rest
, the
cap
tain
of t
he v
esse
l was
Mr E
duar
do B
lanc
o
Gue
rrero
, a n
atio
nal o
fCub
a. T
here
wer
e el
even
cre
w m
embe
rson
boa
rd, s
even
of
who
m w
ere
natio
nals
of C
uba,
thre
e of
Gha
na, a
nd o
ne o
fCap
e Ve
rde
(now
“Cab
o
Ver
de”).
58.
On
7 A
ugus
t 200
9, E
mpr
esa
Balm
ar P
esqu
ería
s de
Atlá
ntic
o (B
alm
ar)
cont
ract
ed th
e se
rvic
es o
f Lot
us fo
r the
pro
visi
on o
f gas
oil b
y th
e M
/V V
irgin
ia G
to
the
follo
win
g fis
hing
ves
sels
ope
rate
d by
Bal
mar
: Am
abal
I,A
mab
al II
,Rim
bal I
and
Rim
bal I
I. Th
e fis
hing
ves
sels
wer
e fly
ing
the
flag
of M
aurit
ania
.
59.
On
14 A
ugus
t 200
9, B
alm
ar’s
age
nt in
Gui
nea-
Bis
sau,
Bija
gos
Lda
(Bija
gos)
,
subm
itted
a w
ritte
n re
ques
t for
aut
horiz
atio
n fro
mth
e N
atio
nal F
ishe
ries
Insp
ectio
n
and
Con
trol S
ervi
ce (S
ervi
ço N
acio
nal d
e Fi
scal
izaç
ão e
Con
trolo
das
Act
ivid
ades
de P
esca
)(he
rein
afte
r “FI
SC
AP
”), a
nat
iona
l age
ncy
oper
atin
g un
der t
he a
uspi
ces
of
the
Min
istry
of F
ishe
ries
of G
uine
a-B
issa
u, to
car
ry o
ut re
fuel
ling
oper
atio
ns in
the
excl
usiv
e ec
onom
ic z
one
of G
uine
a-B
issa
u. B
y le
tter o
f the
sam
e da
te, F
ISC
AP
ackn
owle
dged
rece
ipt o
f the
lette
r fro
mB
ijago
s an
d st
ated
:
The
cont
ent
of y
our
lette
r ha
s be
en a
naly
sed
and
in c
oncl
usio
n th
e FI
SCAP
aut
horiz
es th
e su
pply
of f
uel t
o th
e re
spec
tive
vess
els
unde
r th
e fo
llow
ing
cond
ition
s:1.
To
indi
cate
bef
ore
the
oper
atio
n:a.
The
coor
dina
tes
of th
e op
erat
ion
of th
e su
pply
of f
uel;
b.D
ate,
tim
e an
d na
me
of
the
ship
w
ith
whi
ch
the
vess
els
AM
ABAL
I,…
AMAB
AL I
I, R
IMBA
L I
and
RIM
BAL
II w
ill pe
rform
the
op
erat
ion.
60.
By
lette
r dat
ed 2
0 A
ugus
t 200
9, B
ijago
s in
form
ed F
ISC
AP
of th
e co
ordi
nate
s,
date
, and
tim
e of
the
refu
ellin
g op
erat
ions
to b
e ca
rried
out
by
the
M/V
Virg
inia
G.
Acc
ordi
ng to
Gui
nea-
Biss
au, F
ISC
AP re
spon
ded
to B
ijago
s by
lette
r sen
t on
the
sam
e da
y an
d st
atin
g th
at
the
cont
ent
of y
our
corr
espo
nden
ce w
as a
naly
sed
and
in c
oncl
usio
n FI
SCAP
, alth
ough
it h
as r
ecei
ved
the
info
rmat
ion
requ
este
d, f
urth
er
prop
oses
that
you
r ag
ency
cer
tify
whe
ther
the
vess
el s
uppl
ying
fuel
is
dul
y au
thor
ised
for t
his
oper
atio
n in
the
EEZ
of G
uine
a-B
issa
u.
In it
s C
ount
er-M
emor
ial,
Gui
nea-
Bis
sau
stat
edth
at “[
t]his
cor
resp
onde
nce
neve
r
rece
ived
a re
ply”
. Dur
ing
the
hear
ing,
Pan
ama
stat
edth
at th
e le
tter o
f FIS
CAP
of
20Au
gust
200
9w
as “n
ever
see
n by
the
Virg
inia
G” a
nd th
at it
was
“nev
er p
rese
nted
by th
e G
uine
a-B
issa
u ad
min
istra
tion
in re
ply
to th
e m
any
com
mun
icat
ions
sen
t to
the
ship
ow
ners
”; in
stea
d, a
ccor
ding
to P
anam
a, it
“app
eare
d fo
r the
ver
y fir
st ti
me
in th
e
Cou
nter
-Mem
oria
l”.
61.
Acc
ordi
ng to
the
Mem
oria
l of P
anam
a, o
n 20
Aug
ust 2
009,
the
M/V
Virg
inia
G
supp
lied
gas
oil t
o R
imba
l Ian
dto
Rim
bal I
Iin
the
excl
usiv
e ec
onom
ic z
one
of
Gui
nea-
Bis
sau.
The
Am
abal
IIw
as s
uppl
ied
with
gas
oil o
n 21
Aug
ust 2
009.
62.
On
21 A
ugus
t 200
9, b
efor
e pr
ocee
ding
to re
fuel
the
Am
abal
I, th
e
M/V
Virg
inia
Gw
as a
ppro
ache
d, a
t 19:
00 h
rs a
t lat
itude
11º
48'
N a
nd lo
ngitu
de
017°
31.6
' W, a
ppro
xim
atel
y 60
mile
s of
f the
coa
st o
f Gui
nea-
Bis
sau,
by s
peed
boat
s
carry
ing
FIS
CA
Pof
ficia
ls. T
he o
ffici
als
boar
ded
the
vess
el a
nd o
rder
ed th
e ca
ptai
n
to s
ail t
o th
e po
rt of
Bis
sau,
whe
re th
e M
/V V
irgin
ia G
arriv
ed o
n 22
Augu
st 2
009
at
14:0
0 hr
s. T
he v
iew
s of
the
Par
ties
diffe
r on
the
circ
umst
ance
s of
the
arre
st o
f the
M/V
Virg
inia
Gan
d th
e si
tuat
ion
of th
e ve
ssel
ther
eafte
r. Th
e po
sitio
nsof
the
Par
ties
are
refle
cted
in p
arag
raph
s 33
3to
339
, 350
to 3
58 a
nd 3
65 to
372
.
63.
Toge
ther
with
the
M/V
Virg
inia
G, t
he fi
shin
g ve
ssel
s A
mab
al I
and
IIw
ere
also
arre
sted
and
bro
ught
to th
e po
rt of
Bis
sau.
Tho
se fi
shin
g ve
ssel
s w
ere
rele
ased
on 2
8 Au
gust
200
9.
64.
On
27 A
ugus
t 200
9, th
e In
ter-M
inis
teria
l Com
mis
sion
forM
ariti
me
Sur
veilla
nce
of G
uine
a-B
issa
u (C
omis
são
Inte
rmin
iste
rial d
a Fi
scal
izaç
ão M
aríti
ma)
(her
eina
fter “
CIF
M”)
adop
ted
the
follo
win
g de
cisi
on 0
7/C
IFM
/09:
Con
fisca
te e
x-of
ficio
the
tank
er V
IRG
INIA
G,w
ith it
s ge
ar, e
quip
men
t and
pr
oduc
ts o
n bo
ard
in fa
vor o
f the
Sta
te o
f Gui
nea
Biss
au fo
r the
repe
ated
pr
actic
e of
fis
hing
rel
ated
act
iviti
es in
the
for
m o
f “u
naut
horiz
ed s
ale
of
fuel
to
ship
s fis
hing
in
our
EE
Z, n
amel
yth
e N
/M A
MA
BA
L [II
], in
ac
cord
ance
with
par
agra
ph 1
of A
rticl
e 52
, as
curr
ently
wor
ded
in D
ecre
e N
o. 1
-A/2
005
in c
onju
nctio
n w
ith A
rticl
e 3
c) a
nd A
rticl
e 23
, all
of D
ecre
e-La
w N
o. 6
-A/2
000.
FIS
CA
P n
otifi
ed th
e sh
ip-o
wne
r of t
he C
IFM
dec
isio
n by
lette
r dat
ed 3
1Au
gust
200
9.
65.
Afte
r the
arre
st o
f the
M/V
Virg
inia
G,t
he o
wne
r of t
he v
esse
l, P
enn
Lila
c,
cont
acte
d th
e co
mpa
ny A
frica
rgo,
the
repr
esen
tativ
e of
its
P&I C
lub
(Nav
igat
or)i
n
Gui
nea-
Bis
sau,
and
requ
este
d its
ass
ista
nce
in o
btai
ning
the
rele
ase
of th
e ve
ssel
.
66.
By
lette
r dat
ed 4
Sep
tem
ber 2
009
addr
esse
d to
the
FIS
CAP
Coo
rdin
ator
, the
Dire
ctor
-Gen
eral
of A
frica
rgo,
repr
esen
ting
the
owne
r of t
he M
/V V
irgin
ia G
,
trans
mitt
ed a
com
mun
icat
ion
by w
hich
Pen
n Li
lac
requ
este
d to
be
info
rmed
on t
he w
ay t
o se
ttle
this
diff
icul
t an
d un
plea
sant
situ
atio
n, a
s so
on a
s po
ssib
le o
r to
obs
erve
the
pro
cedu
res
esta
blis
hed
in t
he l
aw a
nd t
he
VII.
Art
icle
s 56
, 58
and
73, p
arag
raph
1, o
f the
Con
vent
ion
161.
The
Trib
unal
will
now
turn
to th
e qu
estio
n w
heth
er G
uine
a-B
issa
u vi
olat
ed th
e
Con
vent
ion
whe
n it
arre
sted
, and
late
r con
fisca
ted,
the
M/V
Virg
inia
G. T
o an
swer
this
que
stio
n th
e Tr
ibun
al w
ill h
ave
to a
scer
tain
whe
ther
Gui
nea-
Bis
sau
unde
r the
Con
vent
ion
had,
as
it cl
aim
s, ju
risdi
ctio
n to
regu
late
bun
kerin
g of
fore
ign
vess
els
fishi
ng in
its
excl
usiv
e ec
onom
ic z
one,
whe
ther
the
rele
vant
law
s an
d re
gula
tions
of
Gui
nea-
Bis
sau
are
in c
onfo
rmity
with
the
Con
vent
ion
and
whe
ther
thei
rapp
licat
ion
in
the
case
oft
heM
/VV
irgin
ia G
viol
ated
the
Con
vent
ion.
162.
Pan
ama
defin
es b
unke
ring
as “t
he te
rm u
sed
in th
e sh
ippi
ng in
dust
ry to
desc
ribe
the
sellin
g of
fuel
from
spe
cial
ised
ves
sels
, suc
h as
oil
tank
ers,
whi
ch
supp
ly fu
el (s
uch
as li
ght f
uel,
gas
oil a
nd m
arin
e di
esel
) to
othe
r ves
sels
whi
lst a
t
sea”
.Gui
nea-
Bis
sau
cons
ider
s th
e de
scrip
tion
by P
anam
a of
the
econ
omic
act
ivity
of
bunk
erin
g “to
be
in g
ener
al c
orre
ct”.
163.
Pan
ama
poin
ts o
ut th
at “t
he a
ctiv
ity o
f pro
vidi
ng b
unke
ring
serv
ices
in th
e
EE
Zof
a c
oast
al S
tate
is n
eith
er d
ealt
with
spe
cific
ally
in th
e C
onve
ntio
n, n
or s
ettle
d
by in
tern
atio
nal c
ase
law
”.
164.
Pan
ama
subm
its th
at “i
t was
, and
is, u
nlaw
ful f
or G
uine
aB
issa
u to
exe
rcis
e
sove
reig
n rig
hts
and
juris
dict
iona
l rig
hts
not a
ttrib
uted
to it
und
er th
e C
onve
ntio
n”. I
t
mai
ntai
ns th
at th
e ex
tent
to w
hich
Gui
nea-
Bis
sau’
s“s
over
eign
ty a
nd ju
risdi
ctio
n w
ere
exte
nded
to th
e ac
tiviti
es o
f the
VIR
GIN
IA G
and
the
resu
lting
den
ial o
f fre
edom
of
navi
gatio
n w
asno
t con
sist
ent w
ith th
e pr
ovis
ions
of t
he C
onve
ntio
n”.
165.
Pan
ama
argu
es th
at “t
he b
unke
ring
serv
ices
pro
vide
d by
the
VIR
GIN
IAG
in
the
EEZ
of G
uine
a B
issa
u fa
ll w
ithin
the
cate
gory
of f
reed
om o
f nav
igat
ion
and
othe
r
inte
rnat
iona
lly la
wfu
l use
s of
the
sea
rela
ted
to th
at fr
eedo
m in
term
s of
Arti
cle
58(1
).”
166.
In a
dditi
on, P
anam
a co
nsid
ers
that
the
requ
irem
ent o
f aut
horiz
atio
n an
d th
e
impo
sitio
n of
fees
for r
efue
lling
vess
els
in th
e ex
clus
ive
econ
omic
zon
e of
Gui
nea-
Bis
sau
as p
rovi
ded
for i
n its
law
s an
d re
gula
tions
are
cont
rary
to th
e fre
edom
s se
t
out i
n ar
ticle
58 o
f the
Con
vent
ion.
167.
Pan
ama
argu
es th
at “[
p]rin
cipa
lam
ong
the
right
s of
oth
er S
tate
s in
the
EEZ
of
a co
asta
l Sta
te, a
re th
e fre
edom
s ac
cord
ed to
all
Sta
tes
in te
rms
of A
rticl
e 58
of t
he
Con
vent
ion”
. In
this
con
text
Pan
ama
mai
ntai
nsth
at
the
excl
usio
n of
the
fre
edom
s lis
ted
in A
rticl
e 87
(d),
(e)
and
(f) f
rom
Ar
ticle
58(1
), an
d th
eir
expr
ess
embo
dim
ent
and
artic
ulat
ion
in
Artic
le56
(1) i
ndic
ates
that
the
freed
om o
f the
sea
s sh
ould
onl
y be
lim
ited
whe
re t
he r
ight
s ar
e re
cogn
ised
exp
ress
ly t
o a
coas
tal S
tate
in t
erm
s of
Ar
ticle
56(1
).
168.
Pan
ama
stat
es th
at “A
rticl
e58
(1),
by re
ferri
ng to
Arti
cle
87, a
ppea
rs to
wan
t to
equa
te th
e fre
edom
s ex
erci
sabl
e in
the
EE
Z to
thos
e of
the
high
sea
s, e
ven
appl
ying
the
prov
isio
ns o
f arti
cles
88
to 1
15 o
f the
Con
vent
ion.
”
169.
Pan
ama
furth
er a
rgue
s th
at
inre
spec
t of
th
e th
ree
freed
oms
(nav
igat
ion,
ov
erfli
ght
and
com
mun
icat
ion)
in c
ase
of a
dis
pute
, the
shi
ft sh
ould
be
in fa
vour
of t
hose
fre
edom
s an
d “o
ther
inte
rnat
iona
lly la
wfu
l use
s of
the
sea
rela
ted
to th
ese
freed
oms,
suc
h as
thos
e as
soci
ated
with
the
oper
atio
n of
shi
ps”.
170.
Pan
ama
mai
ntai
ns th
at th
e bu
nker
ing
activ
ity c
arrie
d ou
t by
the
M/V
Virg
inia
Gis
a “c
omm
erci
al a
ctiv
ity fo
r whi
ch v
esse
ls, i
nclu
ding
fishi
ng v
esse
ls,
in th
e E
EZ
of W
est A
frica
n co
asta
l Sta
tes
offe
r a p
artic
ular
mar
ket f
or s
ellin
gga
s oi
l”,
and
that
the
supp
ly o
f bun
kers
to v
esse
ls is
, the
refo
re, t
he v
ery
purp
ose
of th
e
navi
gatio
n of
that
ves
sel.
It ex
plai
ns th
at it
is b
ecau
se o
f the
inhe
rent
con
nect
ion
betw
een
bunk
erin
g an
d na
viga
tion,
that
bun
kerin
g ac
tiviti
es s
houl
d be
con
side
red
to
be m
ore
intim
atel
y lin
ked
with
the
freed
om to
nav
igat
e an
d ot
her i
nter
natio
nally
law
ful u
ses
of th
e se
a in
the
sens
e of
arti
cle
58, p
arag
raph
1, o
f the
Con
vent
ion.
171.
Pan
ama
mai
ntai
ns th
at, i
n ac
cord
ance
with
arti
cle
56, p
arag
raph
2, o
f the
Con
vent
ion,
a c
oast
al S
tate
, in
exer
cisi
ng it
s rig
hts
and
perfo
rmin
g its
dut
ies
unde
r
the
Con
vent
ion
in th
e ex
clus
ive
econ
omic
zon
e, m
ust h
ave
due
rega
rd to
the
right
s
and
dutie
s of
oth
er S
tate
s,am
ong
whi
ch a
re th
e fre
edom
s ac
cord
ed to
all
Sta
tes
in
term
s of
arti
cle
58 o
f the
Con
vent
ion.
172.
Pan
ama
obse
rves
that
“Dec
ree
Law
6-A
/200
0 in
fring
es th
e pr
ovis
ions
of t
he
Con
vent
ion
beca
use
it gr
ants
Gui
nea-
Bis
sau
with
cer
tain
sov
erei
gnty
righ
ts a
nd
juris
dict
ion
whi
ch a
re n
ot g
rant
ed to
coa
stal
Sta
tes
unde
r the
Con
vent
ion”
.
173.
In th
is c
onte
xt, P
anam
a qu
estio
ns th
e la
ck o
f dis
tinct
ion
in D
ecre
e-La
w6-
A/2
000
betw
een
fishi
ng v
esse
ls a
nd n
on-fi
shin
g ve
ssel
s as
wel
l as
“a b
road
defin
ition
of ‘
fishi
ng-re
late
d ac
tiviti
es’ w
hich
incl
ude
‘logi
stic
al s
uppo
rt ac
tiviti
es’ a
nd
whi
ch a
re d
efin
ed ..
. in
subs
idia
ry le
gisl
atio
n ra
ther
than
in D
ecre
e La
w 6
-A/2
000
itsel
f”. P
anam
a m
aint
ains
that
a b
unke
ring
vess
el is
nei
ther
a fi
shin
g ve
ssel
nor
, by
defin
ition
, a v
esse
l eng
aged
in e
xplo
ring,
exp
loiti
ng o
r util
izin
g th
e na
tura
l res
ourc
es
in th
e ex
clus
ive
econ
omic
zon
e of
Gui
nea-
Bis
sau
in th
e co
ntex
t of t
he ri
ghts
and
juris
dict
ion
acco
rded
to G
uine
a-B
issa
u un
der P
art V
of t
he C
onve
ntio
n. P
anam
a
expl
ains
that
“[b]
unke
ring
activ
ities
to fi
shin
g ve
ssel
s w
ithin
an
EE
Z is
a v
ery
anci
llary
activ
ity th
at c
anno
t be
cons
ider
ed a
s a
rela
ted
fishi
ngac
tivity
”.
174.
Acc
ordi
ng to
Pan
ama,
Dec
ree-
Law
6-A
/200
0 of
Gui
nea-
Bis
sau
is n
ot in
conf
orm
ity w
ith th
e pr
inci
ples
and
pur
pose
s of
the
inte
rnat
iona
l leg
al re
gim
e
conc
erni
ng th
e ex
clus
ive
econ
omic
zon
e. P
anam
a st
ates
that
the
mai
n pu
rpos
e of
the
esta
blis
hmen
t of t
he e
xclu
sive
eco
nom
ic z
one,
as
a su
i gen
eris
zone
, is
to
enab
le c
oast
al S
tate
s to
con
trol a
nd m
anag
e th
eir m
arin
e re
sour
ces.
It fu
rther
argu
es th
at “A
rticl
e56
(1)o
f the
Con
vent
ion
conf
ers
certa
in s
over
eign
righ
ts a
nd a
defin
ed ju
risdi
ctio
n …
in fa
vour
of G
uine
aB
issa
u,in
its
EE
Z, fo
r the
pur
pose
of
expl
orin
g an
d ex
ploi
ting,
con
serv
ing
and
man
agin
g liv
ing
or n
on-li
ving
reso
urce
s”.
Pan
ama
stat
esth
at a
rticl
es 6
1 an
d 62
of t
he C
onve
ntio
n ar
ticul
ate
the
man
ner i
n
whi
ch a
coa
stal
Sta
te c
an re
gula
te th
e co
nser
vatio
n an
d ut
ilizat
ion
of it
sliv
ing
reso
urce
s.
175.
Pan
ama
ques
tions
the
qual
ifica
tion
of b
unke
ring
in th
e ex
clus
ive
econ
omic
zone
asa
fishi
ng-re
late
d ac
tivity
subj
ect t
o na
tiona
l reg
ulat
ion
and
cont
rol.
It ta
kes
the
view
that
[t]he
mat
eria
l sco
pe o
f Gui
nea
Biss
au’s
rig
hts
and
juris
dict
ion
over
livi
ng
reso
urce
s in
its
EEZ
rela
te to
thei
r con
serv
atio
n an
d m
anag
emen
t and
to
the
expl
orat
ion
and
expl
oita
tion
or u
tilis
atio
n of
suc
h liv
ing
reso
urce
s, a
nd
it is
per
haps
rea
sona
ble
that
the
se t
erm
s ca
n ev
en b
e de
scrib
ed a
s “s
uffic
ient
ly w
ide
to e
mbr
ace
all
norm
al e
nter
pris
ory
and
gove
rnm
enta
l
func
tions
tha
t pe
rtain
to
livin
g re
sour
ces.
”H
owev
er,
it w
ould
als
o be
re
ason
able
to
stat
e th
at e
ven
a w
ider
int
erpr
etat
ion
wou
ld n
eces
saril
y pr
eser
ve th
e fu
ndam
enta
l lin
k to
the
livin
g re
sour
ces
them
selv
es.
176.
Acc
ordi
ng to
Pan
ama,
Gui
nea
Biss
au's
pra
ctic
e ap
pear
s to
be
that
of e
xten
ding
its
inte
rpre
tatio
n of
fis
hing
act
iviti
es a
nd f
ishi
ng r
elat
ed a
ctiv
ities
to
incl
ude
bunk
erin
g …
th
e on
ly r
easo
nabl
e in
terp
reta
tive
exte
nsio
n in
cla
ssify
ing
certa
in r
elat
ed
activ
ities
as
fishi
ng re
late
d ac
tiviti
es, o
r log
istic
al s
uppo
rt ac
tiviti
es, s
houl
d be
lim
ited
to t
hose
act
iviti
es w
hich
are
act
ually
and
stri
ctly
rel
ated
to
fishi
ng, r
athe
r tha
n to
gen
eral
ser
vice
s re
nder
ed to
any
ves
sels
as
a m
ost
basi
c ne
cess
ity –
such
as
bunk
erin
g.
Pan
ama
disa
gree
s w
ith th
is a
ppro
ach
adva
nced
by
Gui
nea-
Bis
sau.
177.
As
to th
e ar
gum
ent a
dvan
ced
by G
uine
a-B
issa
u th
at b
unke
ring
of fi
shin
g
vess
els
is c
omm
only
trea
ted
as a
fish
erie
s-re
late
d ac
tivity
in W
est A
frica
, Pan
ama
cons
ider
s th
e st
atem
ent t
o be
inad
equa
te in
sug
gest
ing
that
the
Trib
unal
cou
ld d
eem
an a
llege
d re
gion
al te
nden
cy s
uffic
ient
to e
stab
lish
the
exis
tenc
e of
a le
gal n
orm
.
Acc
ordi
ng to
Pan
ama,
a m
ajor
ity o
f Sta
tes
thro
ugho
ut th
e w
orld
do
not c
onsi
der
vess
els
enga
ged
in fi
shin
g-re
late
d ac
tiviti
es to
be
fishi
ng v
esse
ls.P
anam
a
ackn
owle
dges
that
afis
hing
ves
sel
mig
ht w
ell
be s
ubje
ct t
o sp
ecifi
c ru
les
by v
irtue
of
its
loca
tion
in th
e EE
Z of
Gui
nea
Biss
au a
nd b
y vi
rtue
of th
e fis
hing
act
iviti
es
it ca
rrie
s ou
t. H
owev
er,
it do
es n
ot n
eces
saril
y fo
llow
…th
at t
he r
ules
ap
plie
d to
that
fish
ing
vess
el w
ould
app
ly a
lso
to th
e bu
nker
ing
vess
el, i
n th
is c
ase,
the
VIR
GIN
IA G
.
178.
Pan
ama
stat
esth
at
Gui
nea-
Biss
au’s
man
ifest
ack
now
ledg
emen
t of
the
fin
anci
al b
enef
its o
f re
gula
ting
bunk
erin
g in
its
EEZ
…an
d G
uine
a-Bi
ssau
’s r
eque
st f
or
paym
ent
from
bun
kerin
g ve
ssel
s fo
r th
e is
suan
ce o
f its
con
sent
, is
, in
re
ality
, a m
anife
stat
ion
of a
situ
atio
n w
here
the
auth
oris
atio
n or
con
sent
is
give
n th
e sa
me
treat
men
t as
a lic
ence
, and
one
whe
reby
Gui
nea-
Biss
au
impo
ses
a fo
rm o
f ta
x or
cus
tom
s du
ty o
n bu
nker
ing
activ
ities
ca
rrie
d ou
t in
its E
EZ.
179.
Pan
ama
furth
er s
tate
sth
at
the
unila
tera
l ext
ensi
on b
y G
uine
a-Bi
ssau
of th
e sc
ope
of th
e C
onve
ntio
n th
roug
h its
na
tiona
l fis
herie
s le
gisl
atio
n to
co
ver
also
re
-fuel
ling
oper
atio
ns
carr
ied
out
in
the
EEZ,
su
ch
that
pr
ior
auth
oris
atio
n is
re
ques
ted
agai
nst
paym
ent,
is,
in r
ealit
y, i
nten
ded
sole
ly t
o ex
tend
a
cust
oms-
type
rad
ius:
a s
ituat
ion
that
was
not
, in
fac
t, ac
cept
ed b
y th
e In
tern
atio
nal T
ribun
al in
the
Sai
ga N
o.2
1999
judg
emen
tyet
wou
ld a
ppea
r to
stil
l be
pres
ent,
in d
isgu
ised
for
m,
in G
uine
a-Bi
ssau
’s D
ecre
e La
w 6
-A/
2000
.
180.
In th
is c
onte
xt P
anam
a re
fers
to a
pas
sage
in th
e Jo
int O
rder
No
2/20
01 o
f
1O
ctob
er 2
001
ofth
e M
inis
ter o
f Fis
herie
san
d th
e Se
a an
d th
e M
inis
ter o
f Eco
nom
y
and
Fina
nce
whi
ch re
ads:
“Con
side
ring
the
Gov
ernm
ent’s
Pol
icy
of e
ncou
ragi
ng a
nd
prom
otin
g pr
ivat
e in
itiat
ive
in o
rder
for t
he p
rivat
e se
ctor
to m
ake
a po
sitiv
e
cont
ribut
ion
tow
ards
the
coun
try’s
eco
nom
ic a
nd s
ocia
l dev
elop
men
t”.
181.
To u
nder
line
the
nece
ssity
of b
unke
ring
fishi
ng v
esse
ls in
the
excl
usiv
e
econ
omic
zon
e of
Gui
nea-
Bis
sau,
Pan
ama
furth
er o
bser
ves
that
“bun
kerin
g se
rvic
es
rend
ered
in th
is a
rea
are
… p
artic
ular
ly im
porta
nt o
win
g to
the
gene
ral l
ack
of
bunk
erin
g fa
cilit
ies
and
gas
oil p
rodu
ct in
the
area
” and
that
“the
Por
t of B
issa
u,
‘doe
s no
t hav
e su
itabl
e fa
cilit
ies’
”.
182.
In re
spec
t of t
he e
nviro
nmen
tal c
once
rns
invo
ked
by G
uine
a-B
issa
u to
just
ify
its re
gula
ting
of b
unke
ring,
Pan
ama
argu
es th
at “t
he ri
sks
durin
g th
e bu
nker
ing
oper
atio
ns a
re m
inim
al” a
nd th
at “v
esse
ls li
ke th
e V
irgin
ia G
do n
ot s
uppl
y he
avy
fuel
oil b
ut ju
st g
as o
il...
(a c
lean
and
vol
atile
pro
duct
) [w
hich
] has
not
cau
sed
rele
vant
mar
ine
envi
ronm
enta
l pro
blem
s”. P
anam
a fu
rther
poi
nts
out t
hat “
Gui
nea-
Bis
sau’
s
cont
entio
n th
at it
was
nec
essa
ry to
regu
late
the
VIR
GIN
IA G
’sac
tiviti
es a
t nat
iona
l
law
with
in th
e co
ntex
t of p
rote
ctio
n an
d co
nser
vatio
n of
its
reso
urce
s” c
anno
t be
sust
aine
d, “e
spec
ially
sin
ce th
e la
w th
at w
as e
nfor
ced
agai
nst t
he V
IRG
INIA
Gw
as
the
natio
nal F
ishe
ries
law
of G
uine
a-B
issa
u...
Gui
nea-
Bis
sau
cann
ot n
ow b
e he
ard
to ra
ise
its ‘p
rote
ctio
n an
d co
nser
vatio
n of
its
reso
urce
s’co
ncer
ns fo
r the
firs
t tim
e, in
its C
ount
er-M
emor
ial”.
183.
In a
dditi
on, i
n th
e vi
ew o
f Pan
ama,
the
prin
cipl
e of
sus
tain
able
fish
erie
s,
invo
ked
by G
uine
a-B
issa
u, d
oes
not s
uppo
rt th
eca
se p
rese
nted
by
that
Sta
te.
Pan
ama
reas
ons
that
the
argu
men
ts p
rese
nted
by
Gui
nea-
Bis
sau
are
cont
radi
ctor
y
and
that
Gui
nea-
Bis
sau
is n
ot e
ven
a m
embe
r of t
he In
tern
atio
nal C
omm
issi
on fo
r
the
Con
serv
atio
n of
Atla
ntic
Tun
as.
184.
Rel
ying
on
the
legi
slat
ive
hist
ory
of th
e ex
clus
ive
econ
omic
zon
e co
ncep
t,
Pan
ama
final
ly d
enie
s th
at c
oast
al S
tate
s en
joy
a re
sidu
al a
utho
rity
in th
e ex
clus
ive
econ
omic
zon
e.P
anam
a st
ates
that
“[t]h
ere
is n
o re
sidu
al a
utho
rity
in a
coa
stal
Sta
te
to m
ake
law
s w
hich
them
selv
es v
iola
te o
r res
ult i
n a
viol
atio
n of
the
Con
vent
ion”
.
185.
Gui
nea-
Bis
sau
argu
es th
at it
“has
not
vio
late
d A
rticl
e 58
of t
he C
onve
ntio
n as
bunk
erin
g is
an
econ
omic
act
ivity
,whi
ch is
not
incl
uded
in fr
eedo
m o
f nav
igat
ion
or
othe
r int
erna
tiona
lly la
wfu
l use
s of
the
sea”
.
186.
Gui
nea-
Bis
sau
poin
ts o
ut th
at “t
he E
EZ
has
a su
i gen
eris
stat
us, b
ut in
this
stat
us th
e in
tere
sts
of th
e co
asta
l sta
te in
the
pres
erva
tion
of m
ariti
me
reso
urce
s an
d
the
regu
latio
n of
fish
erie
s pr
evai
l ove
r the
eco
nom
ic in
tere
st o
f bun
kerin
g ac
tiviti
es
carri
ed o
ut b
y ta
nker
s”.
187.
Gui
nea-
Bis
sau
stre
sses
that
[a]c
cord
ing
to a
n ev
olut
iona
ry i
nter
pret
atio
n of
the
Con
vent
ion,
…th
e re
gula
tion
of b
unke
ring
of fi
shin
g ve
ssel
s in
the
excl
usiv
e ec
onom
ic z
one
is a
dmis
sibl
e ow
ing
to th
e so
vere
ign
right
s an
d ju
risdi
ctio
n of
the
coas
tal
Stat
e, re
cogn
ized
in a
rticl
es 5
6, 6
1, 6
2 an
d 73
of t
he C
onve
ntio
n.
188.
Gui
nea-
Bis
sau
stat
es th
eref
ore
that
its
law
s an
d re
gula
tions
and
thei
r
impl
emen
tatio
n vi
s-à-
vis
the
activ
ities
of M
/V V
irgin
ia G
are
in a
ccor
danc
e w
ith th
e
Con
vent
ion
and
othe
r rul
es o
f int
erna
tiona
l law
. Gui
nea-
Bis
sau
argu
es th
at a
s
the
activ
ity o
f bun
kerin
g is
inst
rum
enta
l to
and
supp
orts
fish
ing
oper
atio
ns,
one
natu
rally
has
to
cons
ider
it
a fis
hing
rel
ated
ope
ratio
n, a
nd i
t is
th
eref
ore
regu
late
d, b
oth
unde
r th
e le
gisl
atio
n of
Gui
nea-
Biss
au a
nd
unde
r the
legi
slat
ion
of th
e ot
her S
tate
s of
the
sub-
regi
on.
189.
Acc
ordi
ng to
Gui
nea-
Biss
au “G
uine
a-B
issa
u,in
arti
cle
3, p
arag
raph
s1
and
2
and
para
grap
h3(
b) a
nd (c
), as
wel
l as
artic
le23
of D
ecre
e-La
w N
o. 6
-A/2
000,
esta
blis
hed
the
qual
ifica
tion
of b
unke
ring
as a
fish
ing-
rela
ted
oper
atio
n”.
190.
The
rele
vant
arti
cles
of D
ecre
e-La
w 6
-A/2
000
of 2
2 Au
gust
200
0 re
ad:
Artic
le 3
of D
ecre
e-La
w 6
-A/2
000:
[Tra
nsla
tion
into
Eng
lish
prov
ided
by
Pana
ma
inAn
nex
9 to
its
Mem
oria
l]
ARTI
CLE
3(D
efin
ition
of f
ishi
ng)
1.Fi
shin
g is
und
erst
ood
to b
e th
e ac
t of c
atch
ing
or h
arve
stin
g by
an
y m
eans
of b
iolo
gica
l spe
cies
who
se n
orm
al o
r mos
t fre
quen
t hab
itat i
s w
ater
.2.
Fish
ing
incl
udes
the
prio
r act
iviti
es w
hose
dire
ct p
urpo
se is
that
of
fishi
ng, s
uch
as d
etec
ting,
the
disc
harg
e or
col
lect
ion
of d
evic
es u
sed
to
attra
ct fi
sh, a
nd fi
shin
g re
late
d op
erat
ions
. 3.
For t
he p
urpo
ses
of th
e ab
ove
poin
t, fis
hing
rela
ted
oper
atio
ns
mea
ns: a)
The
trans
hipm
ent o
f fis
h or
fish
ery
prod
ucts
in th
e m
ariti
me
wat
ers
of G
uine
aBi
ssau
;b)
The
trans
port
of fi
sh o
r any
oth
er a
quat
ic o
rgan
ism
s w
hich
ha
ve b
een
caug
ht in
the
mar
itim
e w
ater
s of
Gui
nea
Biss
au
until
the
first
land
ing;
c)Ac
tiviti
es o
f log
istic
supp
ort t
o fis
hing
ves
sels
at s
ea;
d)Th
e co
llect
ion
of fi
sh fr
om fi
sher
men
.
Artic
le 2
3 of
Dec
ree-
Law
6-A
/200
0[T
rans
latio
n in
to E
nglis
h pr
ovid
ed b
y Pa
nam
a in
Ann
ex 9
to it
s M
emor
ial]
ARTI
CLE
23
(Fis
hing
rela
ted
oper
atio
ns)
1.
Fish
ing
rela
ted
oper
atio
ns a
re s
ubje
ct t
o th
e au
thor
isat
ion
of a
m
embe
r of t
he G
over
nmen
t res
pons
ible
for F
ishe
ries.
2.
The
auth
oriz
atio
n m
entio
ned
abov
e is
sub
ject
to
paym
ents
or
com
pens
atio
n as
wel
l as
any
othe
r co
nditi
ons
as m
ay b
e es
tabl
ishe
d by
th
e de
partm
ent
of t
he G
over
nmen
t re
spon
sibl
e fo
r Fi
sher
ies,
nam
ely
rega
rdin
g th
e ar
eas
or l
ocat
ion
for
the
cond
uct
of t
he f
ishi
ng r
elat
ed
activ
ities
and
the
man
dato
ry p
rese
nce
of o
bser
vers
or i
nspe
ctor
s.
191.
Gui
nea-
Bis
sau
poin
ts o
utth
at th
ese
rule
s ar
e “e
ntire
ly in
con
form
ity w
ith th
e
legi
slat
ive
prac
tice
of th
e re
gion
”.Th
is w
as fu
rther
ela
bora
ted
upon
in th
e te
stim
ony
of M
r Dyw
yná
Dja
bulá
,an
expe
rt ca
lled
by G
uine
a-B
issa
u, w
ho s
tate
d:
Bunk
erin
g at
sea
is
prov
ided
for
in
the
Con
vent
ion
on A
cces
s an
d Ex
ploi
tatio
n of
Fis
hery
Res
ourc
es o
f 199
3. T
his
Con
vent
ion
anal
yzes
the
legi
slat
ion
of t
he m
embe
r St
ates
, on
e of
whi
ch is
Gui
nea-
Biss
au.
Ther
e ar
e ot
hers
: Se
nega
l, C
ape
Verd
e, S
ierr
a Le
one.
The
Con
vent
ion
says
th
at th
e St
ates
them
selv
es a
re re
spon
sibl
e fo
r reg
ulat
ing
bunk
erin
g at
sea
.
By r
egul
atin
g th
is m
atte
r, th
e le
gisl
atio
n of
the
se S
tate
s ad
opts
a b
road
no
tion
of fi
shin
g ve
ssel
and
fish
ing
activ
ities
as
such
. Whe
n w
e sp
eak
of
fishi
ng v
esse
ls in
the
broa
d se
nse,
we
also
incl
ude
in th
is n
otio
n ve
ssel
s th
at p
rovi
de lo
gist
ic s
uppo
rt, s
uch
as v
esse
ls s
uppl
ying
fue
l. Th
e br
oad
sens
e of
fish
ing
incl
udes
not
onl
y th
e ac
tual
cat
chin
g of
fish
but
als
o th
e su
pply
of s
hips
at s
ea, a
nd th
e le
gisl
atio
n of
Gui
nea-
Biss
au a
lso
goes
in
that
dire
ctio
n.
192.
Gui
nea-
Bis
sau
stat
es th
at it
tota
lly d
isag
rees
that
the
bunk
erin
g ac
tivity
car
ried
out b
y th
e V
irgin
iaG
in
the
excl
usiv
e ec
onom
ic z
one
of G
uine
a-Bi
ssau
falls
with
in th
e fre
edom
of
navi
gatio
n an
d ot
her
inte
rnat
iona
l la
wfu
l us
es o
f th
e se
a in
ter
ms
of
artic
le58
(1)
of th
e C
onve
ntio
n, a
nd th
at it
req
uire
d no
prio
r au
thor
izat
ion
agai
nst p
aym
ent.
193.
Gui
nea-
Bis
sau
furth
er s
tate
sth
at
the
freed
om o
f nav
igat
ion
of s
hips
with
a fl
ag o
f thi
rd S
tate
s th
roug
h th
e ex
clus
ive
econ
omic
zon
e of
coa
stal
Sta
tes
shou
ld n
ot in
clud
e th
e rig
ht to
be
inv
olve
d in
the
eco
nom
ic a
ctiv
ity o
f bu
nker
ing
of f
ishi
ng v
esse
ls,
…
give
n th
at th
e ac
tivity
has
a m
uch
stro
nger
con
nect
ion
with
the
exer
cise
of
fishi
ng th
an w
ith th
e fre
edom
of n
avig
atio
n.
194.
Gui
nea-
Bis
sau
argu
es th
at “t
he m
ariti
me
freed
oms
bene
fittin
g ot
her s
tate
s in
the
EEZ
may
be
rest
ricte
d as
far a
s ne
cess
ary
to e
nsur
e th
e rig
hts
of th
e co
asta
l
Sta
te (a
rt.58
, no.
3 of
the
Con
vent
ion)
”.
195.
In th
is c
onte
xt G
uine
a-B
issa
u al
so a
rgue
s th
at “a
s bu
nker
ing
may
end
ange
r
the
right
of t
he c
oast
al S
tate
ove
r the
exi
stin
g liv
ing
reso
urce
s in
its
excl
usiv
e
econ
omic
zon
e, it
mus
t be
regu
late
d by
the
latte
r”.
196.
Acc
ordi
ng to
Gui
nea-
Biss
au, “
the
cond
ition
s re
quire
d in
ord
er to
refu
el a
t sea
… h
ave
to b
e co
ntro
lled
not o
nly
due
to th
e ec
onom
ic c
onse
quen
ces
of p
reda
tory
fishi
ng, b
ut a
lso
due
to th
e hi
gh e
nviro
nmen
tal r
isks
this
impl
ies”
.
197.
Gui
nea-
Bis
sau
mai
ntai
nsth
at “[
t]he
prec
autio
nary
prin
cipl
e in
env
ironm
enta
l
law
obl
iges
the
coas
tal S
tate
s to
take
all
appr
opria
te m
easu
res
to a
void
any
risk
s to
the
envi
ronm
ent,
as it
is th
e ca
se o
f an
oil t
anke
r sai
ling
in th
e E
EZ”
.
198.
In th
is re
spec
t, G
uine
a-B
issa
u po
ints
out
that
“the
per
form
ance
of t
he fl
ag
Sta
tes
is n
ot s
uffic
ient
to p
reve
nt th
e un
cont
rolle
d ex
ploi
tatio
n of
mar
ine
livin
g
reso
urce
s” a
nd c
onsi
ders
that
“[t]h
e re
gula
tion
of b
unke
ring
as a
fish
ing-
rela
ted
activ
ity is
a d
irect
con
sequ
ence
of t
he u
se o
fthe
pre
caut
iona
ry a
ppro
ach
by G
uine
a-
Bis
sau”
.
199.
Gui
nea-
Bis
sau
reje
cts
Pan
ama’
s as
serti
onth
at G
uine
a-B
issa
u’s
fishi
ng la
w
has
noth
ing
to d
o w
ith th
e pr
otec
tion
of th
e en
viro
nmen
t. It
argu
es th
at b
unke
ring
has
very
ser
ious
env
ironm
enta
l ris
ks a
nd th
at fo
r thi
s re
ason
its
regu
latio
n by
coa
stal
Sta
tes
is p
erm
itted
by
artic
les
61 a
nd 6
2 of
the
Con
vent
ion,
whi
ch th
e Tr
ibun
al d
id
not c
onsi
der i
n th
e M
/V “S
AIG
A”(
No.
2) C
ase.
Gui
nea-
Bis
sau
stat
es:
Is i
t po
ssib
leto
ass
ume
that
no
oil
spills
cau
sed
by b
unke
ring
have
oc
curr
ed in
Wes
t Afri
can
coun
tries
? Th
e an
swer
mus
t be
in th
e ne
gativ
e,
but i
t is
not p
ossi
ble
to c
onfir
m it
with
exa
mpl
es. T
his
is th
e re
ason
why
G
uine
a-Bi
ssau
app
lies
a pr
ecau
tiona
ry a
ppro
ach
in it
s fis
herie
s la
w.
200.
Rej
ectin
g th
e co
nclu
sion
dra
wn
by P
anam
a fro
m th
e fa
ctth
at G
uine
a-B
issa
u
does
not
hav
e fa
cilit
ies
for t
he fu
ellin
g of
ves
sels
in it
s po
rts, G
uine
a-B
issa
u st
ates
that
this
doe
s no
t pre
clud
e its
right
to c
ontro
l the
man
ner i
n w
hich
this
oper
atio
n is
carri
ed o
ut in
its
excl
usiv
e ec
onom
ic z
one.
201.
Turn
ing
to th
e fe
e to
be
paid
for b
unke
ring
auth
oriz
atio
n in
its
excl
usiv
e
econ
omic
zon
e,G
uine
a-B
issa
u em
phas
izes
that
the
unde
rlyin
g ob
ject
ive
is s
trict
ly o
f
an e
nviro
nmen
tal n
atur
e an
d th
e re
venu
e th
at is
obt
aine
d is
inte
nded
onl
y to
fina
nce
Sta
te p
olic
ies
conc
erni
ng m
arin
e po
llutio
n.
202.
Gui
nea-
Bis
sau
stat
esth
at
the
coas
tal S
tate
has
the
rig
ht t
o ob
tain
the
cor
resp
ondi
ng t
ax r
even
ue
resu
lting
fro
m t
his
activ
ity,
inas
muc
h as
bun
kerin
g pr
even
ts t
he c
oast
al
Stat
e fro
m c
olle
ctin
g th
e na
tura
l tax
es fo
r the
sup
ply
of fu
el in
its
terr
itory
, an
d al
so in
acc
orda
nce
with
the
“pol
lute
r pay
s pr
inci
ple”
.
203.
In th
e vi
ew o
f Gui
nea-
Bis
sau,
[i]t i
s th
eref
ore
norm
al fo
r th
e co
asta
l Sta
te to
dem
and
that
the
activ
ity o
f bu
nker
ing
in i
ts e
xclu
sive
eco
nom
ic z
one
impl
ies
the
paym
ent
of t
he
corr
espo
ndin
g lic
ence
s, p
ursu
ant t
o ar
t. 62
of t
he C
onve
ntio
n.
204.
Gui
nea-
Bis
sau
emph
asiz
es th
at, c
ontra
ry to
Pan
ama’
s po
sitio
n, “G
uine
a-
Bis
sau
neve
r ext
ende
d its
tax
legi
slat
ion
to th
e E
EZ,
giv
en th
at it
mer
ely
char
ges
a
smal
l am
ount
for t
he is
sue
of th
e re
fuel
ling
licen
ce, w
hich
is w
ell b
elow
wha
t it w
ould
obta
in b
y w
ay o
f tax
reve
nue
if th
e re
fuel
ling
had
take
n pl
ace
on la
nd”.
205.
This
issu
e w
as fu
rther
ela
bora
ted
upon
in th
e te
stim
ony
ofM
rDyw
yná
Dja
bulá
,
whe
re h
e st
ated
:
Ther
e is
a d
iffer
ence
in t
erm
s of
the
law
bet
wee
n bu
nker
ing
at s
ea a
nd
bunk
erin
g on
lan
d. B
unke
ring
in t
he p
ort,
acco
rdin
g to
cur
rent
law
, is
re
gard
ed a
s a
com
mer
cial
act
ivity
, and
as
such
it is
sub
ject
to m
ore
of a
ta
x ch
arge
. The
re it
will
have
to
pay
an im
port
tax;
in t
erm
s of
gas
oil
it w
ould
be
a ta
x of
5%
of t
he v
alue
of t
he p
rodu
ct. I
t wou
ld a
lso
have
to p
ay
an in
dust
rial t
ax,
whi
ch i
s 25
% o
n th
e in
com
e, i.
e. t
he a
mou
nt it
ear
ns
from
thi
s ac
tivity
. In
the
cas
e of
bun
kerin
g at
sea
it is
diff
eren
t. O
ur la
w
take
s ac
coun
t of
the
asp
ect
of c
onse
rvin
g re
sour
ces,
the
env
ironm
ent,
beca
use
as t
his
activ
ity c
ause
s en
viro
nmen
tal d
amag
e be
caus
e of
fue
l sp
illage
s, w
aste
tha
t m
ay o
ccur
dur
ing
the
trans
fer,
and
the
time
that
fis
hing
ves
sels
act
ually
rem
ain
in t
he f
ishi
ng a
rea
mea
ns t
hat
they
fis
h m
ore
beca
use
they
do
not
inte
rrup
t th
eir
fishi
ng a
ctiv
ity t
o go
to
port
to
refu
el a
nd t
here
fore
the
y ca
tch
mor
e fis
h, w
hich
has
env
ironm
enta
l ef
fect
s. E
ven
in th
e jo
int o
rdin
ance
it s
ays
that
we
mus
t ta
ke a
ccou
nt o
f th
e en
viro
nmen
tal a
spec
t, an
d th
is a
ctiv
ity m
ust
be c
ondi
tione
d. S
o th
e ch
arge
tha
t is
mad
e ta
kes
acco
unt
of t
he p
rinci
ple
of e
nviro
nmen
tal
prot
ectio
n. T
he id
ea o
f thi
s ch
arge
is to
influ
ence
the
wor
k of
the
agen
ts in
th
is a
ctiv
ity a
nd m
ake
them
thi
nk t
wic
e, a
nd if
the
y do
not
wan
t to
pay
th
en th
ey w
ill no
t bun
ker a
t sea
. If t
hey
wan
t to
cont
inue
bun
kerin
g at
sea
th
ey
have
to
pa
y th
is
amou
nt
to
fund
en
viro
nmen
tal
polic
ies,
th
e co
nseq
uenc
es o
f a s
pilla
ge a
nd th
e fu
ndin
g of
pol
icie
s an
d re
med
ying
the
dam
age
that
can
be
caus
ed. I
t is
a ve
ry s
mal
l am
ount
in fa
ct, b
ut it
can
be
rais
ed if
it is
not
eno
ugh
to d
eter
this
kin
d of
act
ivity
.
206.
The
Trib
unal
poi
nts
out t
hat,
as n
oted
ear
lier,
the
M/V
Virg
inia
G,f
lyin
g th
e
flag
of P
anam
a, p
rovi
ded
gas
oil t
o fo
reig
n ve
ssel
s fis
hing
in th
e ex
clus
ive
econ
omic
zone
of G
uine
a-B
issa
u an
d w
as a
rrest
ed fo
r tha
t act
ivity
by
the
auth
oriti
es o
f
Gui
nea-
Bis
sau.
207.
The
Trib
unal
wis
hes
to u
nder
line,
ther
efor
e,th
at it
s ta
sk in
the
pres
ent c
ase
is
to d
eal w
ith a
dis
pute
rela
ting
to b
unke
ring
activ
ities
in s
uppo
rt of
fore
ign
vess
els
fishi
ng in
the
excl
usiv
e ec
onom
ic z
one
of a
coa
stal
Sta
te.
208.
The
ques
tion
to b
e ad
dres
sed
by th
e Tr
ibun
al is
whe
ther
Gui
nea-
Bis
sau,
in
the
exer
cise
of i
ts s
over
eign
righ
ts in
resp
ect o
f the
exp
lora
tion,
exp
loita
tion,
cons
erva
tion
and
man
agem
ent o
f nat
ural
reso
urce
s in
its
excl
usiv
e ec
onom
ic z
one,
has
the
com
pete
nce
to re
gula
te b
unke
ring
of fo
reig
n ve
ssel
s fis
hing
in th
iszo
ne. T
o
answ
er th
is q
uest
ion,
the
Trib
unal
nee
ds to
ana
lyze
the
rele
vant
pro
visi
ons
of th
e
Con
vent
ion
and
the
prac
tice
of S
tate
s in
this
rega
rd.
209.
The
Trib
unal
hol
ds th
at P
art V
of t
he C
onve
ntio
n, in
par
ticul
ar a
rticl
e 56
of t
he
Con
vent
ion
read
toge
ther
with
the
prov
isio
ns o
n liv
ing
reso
urce
s in
arti
cles
61
to 6
8
of th
e C
onve
ntio
n, g
ives
suf
ficie
nt g
uida
nce
conc
erni
ng th
e qu
estio
n w
heth
er c
oast
al
Sta
tes
have
the
com
pete
nce
to re
gula
te b
unke
ring
of fo
reig
n ve
ssel
s fis
hing
in th
eir
excl
usiv
e ec
onom
ic z
ones
.
210.
Arti
cle
56 o
f the
Con
vent
ion
read
s as
follo
ws:
1.In
the
excl
usiv
e ec
onom
ic z
one,
the
coas
tal S
tate
has
:
(a)
sove
reig
n rig
hts
for
the
purp
ose
of
expl
orin
g an
d ex
ploi
ting,
co
nser
ving
and
man
agin
g th
e na
tura
l res
ourc
es, w
heth
er li
ving
or
non-
livin
g, o
f th
e w
ater
s su
perja
cent
to
the
seab
ed a
nd o
f th
e se
abed
and
its
subs
oil,
and
with
reg
ard
to o
ther
act
iviti
es f
or t
heec
onom
ic e
xplo
itatio
n an
d ex
plor
atio
n of
the
zon
e, s
uch
as t
he
prod
uctio
n of
ene
rgy
from
the
wat
er, c
urre
nts
and
win
ds;
(b)
juris
dict
ion
as
prov
ided
for
in
the
rel
evan
t pr
ovis
ions
of
thi
s C
onve
ntio
n w
ith re
gard
to:
(i)th
e es
tabl
ishm
ent a
nd u
se o
f arti
ficia
l isl
ands
, ins
talla
tions
an
d st
ruct
ures
;(ii
)m
arin
e sc
ient
ific
rese
arch
;(ii
i)th
e pr
otec
tion
and
pres
erva
tion
of th
e m
arin
e en
viro
nmen
t;
(c)
othe
r rig
hts
and
dutie
s pr
ovid
ed fo
r in
this
Con
vent
ion.
2.In
ex
erci
sing
its
rig
hts
and
perfo
rmin
g its
du
ties
unde
r th
is
Con
vent
ion
in th
e ex
clus
ive
econ
omic
zon
e, th
e co
asta
l Sta
te s
hall
have
du
e re
gard
to
the
right
s an
d du
ties
of o
ther
Sta
tes
and
shal
l ac
t in
a
man
ner c
ompa
tible
with
the
prov
isio
ns o
f thi
s C
onve
ntio
n.
3.Th
e rig
hts
set
out
in t
his
artic
le w
ith r
espe
ct t
o th
e se
abed
and
su
bsoi
l sha
ll be
exe
rcis
ed in
acc
orda
nce
with
Par
t VI.
211.
The
Trib
unal
obs
erve
s th
at a
rticl
e 56
of t
he C
onve
ntio
n re
fers
to s
over
eign
right
s fo
r the
pur
pose
of e
xplo
ring
and
expl
oitin
g, c
onse
rvin
g an
d m
anag
ing
natu
ral
reso
urce
s. T
he te
rm “s
over
eign
righ
ts” i
n th
e vi
ew o
f the
Trib
unal
enc
ompa
sses
all
right
s ne
cess
ary
for a
nd c
onne
cted
with
the
expl
orat
ion,
exp
loita
tion,
con
serv
atio
n
and
man
agem
ent o
f the
nat
ural
reso
urce
s, in
clud
ing
the
right
to ta
ke th
e ne
cess
ary
enfo
rcem
ent m
easu
res.
212.
The
use
of th
e te
rms
“con
serv
ing”
and
“man
agin
g” in
arti
cle
56 o
f the
Con
vent
ion
indi
cate
s th
at th
e rig
hts
of c
oast
al S
tate
s go
bey
ond
cons
erva
tion
in it
s
stric
t sen
se. T
he fa
ct th
at c
onse
rvat
ion
and
man
agem
ent c
over
diff
eren
t asp
ects
is
supp
orte
d by
arti
cle
61 o
f the
Con
vent
ion,
whi
ch a
ddre
sses
the
issu
eof
con
serv
atio
n
as it
s tit
le in
dica
tes,
whe
reas
arti
cle
62 o
f the
Con
vent
ion
deal
s w
ith b
oth
cons
erva
tion
and
man
agem
ent.
213.
The
Trib
unal
em
phas
izes
that
in th
e ex
erci
se o
f the
sov
erei
gn ri
ghts
of t
he
coas
tal S
tate
to e
xplo
re, e
xplo
it, c
onse
rve
and
man
age
the
livin
g re
sour
ces
of th
e
excl
usiv
e ec
onom
ic z
one
the
coas
tal S
tate
is e
ntitl
ed u
nder
the
Con
vent
ion,
to a
dopt
law
s an
d re
gula
tions
est
ablis
hing
the
term
s an
d co
nditi
ons
for a
cces
s by
fore
ign
fishi
ng v
esse
ls to
its
excl
usiv
e ec
onom
ic z
one
(arti
cles
56,
par
agra
ph 1
, and
62,
para
grap
h4,
of t
he C
onve
ntio
n). U
nder
arti
cle
62, p
arag
raph
4, o
f the
Con
vent
ion,
the
law
s an
d re
gula
tions
thus
ado
pted
mus
t con
form
to th
e C
onve
ntio
n an
d m
ay
rela
te to
, int
er a
lia, t
he m
atte
rs li
sted
ther
ein.
The
Trib
unal
not
es th
at th
e lis
t of
mat
ters
in a
rticl
e 62
, par
agra
ph 4
, of t
he C
onve
ntio
n co
vers
sev
eral
mea
sure
s w
hich
may
be
take
n by
coa
stal
Sta
tes.
Thes
e m
easu
res
may
be c
onsi
dere
d as
man
agem
ent.
The
Trib
unal
furth
er n
otes
that
the
wor
ding
of a
rticl
e 62
, par
agra
ph4,
of th
e C
onve
ntio
n in
dica
tes
that
this
list
is n
ot e
xhau
stiv
e.
214.
The
Trib
unal
is a
war
e of
the
deci
sion
mad
e by
the
Arb
itral
Trib
unal
in th
e
Fille
ting
with
in th
e G
ulf o
f St.
Law
renc
e ar
bitra
tion
betw
een
Can
ada
and
Fran
ce
whi
ch s
tate
d in
resp
ect o
f the
list
in a
rticl
e 62
, par
agra
ph 4
, of t
he C
onve
ntio
n:
“Alth
ough
the
list i
s no
t exh
aust
ive,
it d
oes
not a
ppea
r tha
t the
regu
lato
ry a
utho
rity
of
the
coas
tal S
tate
nor
mal
ly in
clud
es th
e au
thor
ity to
regu
late
sub
ject
s of
a d
iffer
ent
natu
re th
an th
ose
desc
ribed
”(D
ispu
te c
once
rnin
g Fi
lletin
g w
ithin
the
Gul
f of S
t.
Law
renc
e be
twee
n C
anad
a an
dFr
ance
,Dec
isio
n of
17
July
198
6,IL
R82
(199
0),
p.59
1, a
t p.6
30, p
ara.
52)
.
215.
The
Trib
unal
, how
ever
, is
ofth
e vi
ew th
at it
is a
ppar
ent f
rom
the
list i
n
artic
le62
,par
agra
ph4,
of t
he C
onve
ntio
n th
at fo
r all
activ
ities
that
may
be
regu
late
d
by a
coa
stal
Sta
te th
ere
mus
t be
a di
rect
con
nect
ion
to fi
shin
g. T
he T
ribun
al
obse
rves
that
suc
h co
nnec
tion
to fi
shin
g ex
ists
for t
he b
unke
ring
of fo
reig
n ve
ssel
s
fishi
ng in
the
excl
usiv
e ec
onom
ic z
one
sinc
e th
is e
nabl
es th
em to
con
tinue
thei
r
activ
ities
with
out i
nter
rupt
ion
at s
ea.
216.
In re
achi
ng th
is c
oncl
usio
n th
e Tr
ibun
al is
als
o gu
ided
by
the
defin
ition
s of
“fish
ing”
and
“fis
hing
-rela
ted”
act
iviti
es in
sev
eral
of t
he in
tern
atio
nal a
gree
men
ts
refe
rred
to b
elow
. The
y al
l est
ablis
hth
e cl
ose
conn
ectio
n be
twee
n fis
hing
and
the
vario
us s
uppo
rt ac
tiviti
es, i
nclu
ding
bun
kerin
g.Th
e Tr
ibun
al ta
kes
note
, in
this
rega
rd,
of th
e A
gree
men
t on
Port
Sta
te M
easu
res
to P
reve
nt, D
eter
and
Elim
inat
e Ill
egal
,
Unr
epor
ted
and
Unr
egul
ated
Fis
hing
(200
9). A
rticl
e 1,
par
agra
ph (d
), of
that
agre
emen
tdef
ines
: “fis
hing
rela
ted
activ
ities
”as
“any
ope
ratio
n in
sup
port
of, o
r in
prep
arat
ion
for,
fishi
ng, i
nclu
ding
… th
e pr
ovis
ioni
ng o
f per
sonn
el, f
uel,
gear
and
othe
r sup
plie
s at
sea
”. A
rticl
e 2,
par
agra
ph 6
, of t
he C
onve
ntio
n on
the
Det
erm
inat
ion
of th
e M
inim
um C
ondi
tions
for A
cces
s an
d E
xplo
itatio
n of
Mar
ine
Res
ourc
es w
ithin
the
Mar
itim
e A
reas
und
er J
uris
dict
ion
of th
e M
embe
r Sta
tes
of th
e
Sub
-Reg
iona
l Fis
herie
s C
omm
issi
on (2
012)
con
stitu
tes
anot
her e
xam
ple.
It s
tate
s:
“Fis
hing
ves
sels
: Any
ves
sel t
hat i
s us
ed fo
r fis
hing
or f
or th
at p
urpo
se in
clud
ing
supp
ort v
esse
ls, c
omm
erci
al v
esse
ls, a
nd a
ny o
ther
ves
sel p
artic
ipat
ing
dire
ctly
in
fishi
ng a
ctiv
ities
”.Th
e C
onve
ntio
n fo
r the
Con
serv
atio
n of
Ana
drom
ous
Sto
cks
in th
e
Nor
th P
acifi
c O
cean
(199
2), t
he C
onve
ntio
n on
the
Con
serv
atio
n an
d M
anag
emen
t
of F
ishe
ry R
esou
rces
in th
e S
outh
Eas
t Atla
ntic
Oce
an (2
001)
, the
Sou
ther
n In
dian
Oce
an F
ishe
ries
Agr
eem
ent (
2006
), th
e C
onve
ntio
n on
the
Con
serv
atio
n an
d
Man
agem
ent o
f Hig
hly
Mig
rato
ry F
ish
Sto
cks
in th
e W
este
rn a
nd C
entra
l Pac
ific
Oce
an (2
000)
and
the
Con
vent
ion
for t
he C
onse
rvat
ion
of S
outh
ern
Blu
efin
Tun
a
(199
3) fo
llow
the
sam
e ex
ampl
e.
217.
The
Trib
unal
is o
f the
vie
w th
at th
e re
gula
tion
by a
coa
stal
Sta
te o
f bun
kerin
g
of fo
reig
n ve
ssel
s fis
hing
in it
sex
clus
ive
econ
omic
zon
e is
am
ong
thos
e m
easu
res
whi
ch th
eco
asta
l Sta
te m
ay ta
ke in
its
excl
usiv
e ec
onom
ic z
one
to c
onse
rve
and
man
age
its li
ving
reso
urce
s un
der a
rticl
e56
of th
e C
onve
ntio
n re
ad to
geth
er w
ith
artic
le 6
2, p
arag
raph
4, o
f the
Con
vent
ion.
This
vie
w is
als
o co
nfirm
ed b
y S
tate
prac
tice
whi
ch h
as d
evel
oped
afte
r the
ado
ptio
n of
the
Con
vent
ion.
218.
The
Trib
unal
ack
now
ledg
es th
at th
e na
tiona
l leg
isla
tion
of s
ever
al S
tate
s,no
t
only
in th
e W
est A
frica
n re
gion
, but
als
o in
som
e ot
her r
egio
ns o
f the
wor
ld,
regu
late
sbu
nker
ing
of fo
reig
n ve
ssel
s fis
hing
in th
eir e
xclu
sive
eco
nom
ic z
ones
in a
way
com
para
ble
to th
atof
Gui
nea-
Bis
sau.
The
Trib
unal
furth
er n
otes
that
ther
e is
no
man
ifest
obje
ctio
n to
suc
h le
gisl
atio
n an
d th
at it
is, i
n ge
nera
l, co
mpl
ied
with
.
219.
In th
is c
onte
xt,t
he T
ribun
al re
fers
aga
in (s
ee p
arag
raph
216
) to
seve
ral
inte
rnat
iona
l agr
eem
ents
con
clud
ed to
con
trol a
nd m
anag
e fis
hing
act
iviti
es.T
he
Trib
unal
not
es, i
n th
is re
gard
, tha
t the
y in
clud
e su
pply
of f
uel t
o fis
hing
ves
sels
in th
e
defin
ition
of “
fishi
ng-re
late
d ac
tiviti
es”.
220.
The
Trib
unal
will
now
con
side
r the
sco
pe o
f the
com
pete
nce
of c
oast
al S
tate
s
to re
gula
te b
unke
ring
of fo
reig
n ve
ssel
s in
thei
r exc
lusi
ve e
cono
mic
zon
es. T
o do
so
it w
ill ha
ve to
est
ablis
hto
wha
t ext
ent b
unke
ring
is c
over
ed b
y th
e fre
edom
of
navi
gatio
nor
oth
er in
tern
atio
nally
law
ful u
ses
of th
e se
a un
der a
rticl
e58
of t
he
Con
vent
ion.
221.
Arti
cle
58 o
f the
Con
vent
ion
read
s:
1. I
n th
e ex
clus
ive
econ
omic
zon
e, a
ll St
ates
, w
heth
er c
oast
al o
r la
nd-
lock
ed,
enjo
y, s
ubje
ct t
o th
e re
leva
nt p
rovi
sion
s of
thi
s C
onve
ntio
n, t
he
freed
oms
refe
rred
to
in a
rticl
e87
of
navi
gatio
n an
d ov
erfli
ght
and
of t
he
layi
ng o
f sub
mar
ine
cabl
es a
nd p
ipel
ines
, and
oth
er in
tern
atio
nally
law
ful
uses
of t
he s
ea re
late
d to
thes
e fre
edom
s, s
uch
as th
ose
asso
ciat
ed w
ith
the
oper
atio
n of
shi
ps,
airc
raft
and
subm
arin
e ca
bles
and
pip
elin
es,
and
com
patib
le w
ith th
e ot
her p
rovi
sion
s of
this
Con
vent
ion.
2. A
rticl
es88
to11
5 an
d ot
her p
ertin
ent r
ules
of i
nter
natio
nal l
aw a
pply
to
the
excl
usiv
e ec
onom
ic z
one
in s
o fa
r as
the
y ar
e no
t in
com
patib
le w
ith
this
Par
t.
3.
In
exer
cisi
ng
thei
r rig
hts
and
perfo
rmin
g th
eir
dutie
s un
der
this
C
onve
ntio
n in
the
excl
usiv
e ec
onom
ic z
one,
Sta
tes
shal
l hav
e du
e re
gard
to
the
right
s an
d du
ties
of th
e co
asta
l Sta
te a
nd s
hall
com
ply
with
the
law
s an
d re
gula
tions
ado
pted
by
the
coas
tal
Stat
e in
acc
orda
nce
with
the
pr
ovis
ions
of t
his
Con
vent
ion
and
othe
r rul
es o
f int
erna
tiona
l law
in s
o fa
r as
they
are
not
inco
mpa
tible
with
this
Par
t.
222.
The
Trib
unal
is o
f the
vie
w th
at a
rticl
e 58
of t
he C
onve
ntio
n is
to b
e re
ad
toge
ther
with
arti
cle
56of
the
Con
vent
ion.
The
Trib
unal
con
side
rsth
at a
rticl
e 58
does
not
pre
vent
coa
stal
Sta
tes
from
regu
latin
g, u
nder
arti
cle
56, b
unke
ring
of
fore
ign
vess
els
fishi
ng in
thei
r exc
lusi
ve e
cono
mic
zon
es.S
uch
com
pete
nce,
as
note
d in
par
agra
ph 2
13, d
eriv
es fr
om th
e so
vere
ign
right
s of
coa
stal
Sta
tes
to
expl
ore,
expl
oit,
cons
erve
and
man
age
natu
ral r
esou
rces
.
223.
The
Trib
unal
em
phas
izes
that
the
bunk
erin
g of
fore
ign
vess
els
enga
ged
in
fishi
ng in
the
excl
usiv
e ec
onom
ic z
one
is a
nac
tivity
whi
ch m
ay b
e re
gula
ted
by th
e
coas
tal S
tate
con
cern
ed. T
he c
oast
al S
tate
, how
ever
, doe
s no
t hav
e su
ch
com
pete
nce
with
rega
rd to
oth
er b
unke
ring
activ
ities
,unl
ess
othe
rwis
e de
term
ined
in
acco
rdan
ce w
ith th
e C
onve
ntio
n.
224.
As
to th
e ar
gum
ents
of t
he P
artie
s co
ncer
ning
the
right
of a
coa
stal
Sta
te to
regu
late
bun
kerin
g of
fish
ing
vess
els
for t
he p
urpo
se o
f pro
tect
ing
the
mar
ine
envi
ronm
ent,
the
Trib
unal
con
side
rs it
unn
eces
sary
to s
crut
iniz
e th
e re
leva
nt
argu
men
ts a
nd fa
cts
pres
ente
d by
the
Parti
es. I
n th
e vi
ew o
f the
Trib
unal
,it s
uffic
es
to p
oint
out
that
Gui
nea-
Bis
sau
inco
rpor
ated
its
regu
latio
ns o
n bu
nker
ing
in it
s
legi
slat
ion
on fi
shin
g ra
ther
than
in le
gisl
atio
n co
ncer
ning
the
prot
ectio
n of
the
mar
ine
envi
ronm
ent.
225.
The
Trib
unal
will
now
turn
to th
e ne
xt q
uest
ion,
whe
ther
the
legi
slat
ion
of
Gui
nea-
Bis
sau
conc
erni
ng b
unke
ring
of fi
shin
g ve
ssel
s co
nfor
ms
to a
rticl
es 5
6 an
d
62 o
f the
Con
vent
ion.
226.
In c
onsi
derin
g th
e re
leva
nt n
atio
nal l
aw o
f Gui
nea-
Bis
sau,
the
Trib
unal
reca
lls
the
Judg
men
t of t
he P
erm
anen
t Cou
rt of
Inte
rnat
iona
l Jus
tice
in th
e C
ase
conc
erni
ng
Cer
tain
Ger
man
Inte
rest
s in
Pol
ish
Upp
er S
ilesi
a w
here
the
Cou
rt st
ated
:
From
the
sta
ndpo
int
of I
nter
natio
nal
Law
and
of
the
Cou
rt w
hich
is
its
orga
n, m
unic
ipal
law
s ar
e m
erel
y fa
cts
whi
ch e
xpre
ss t
he w
ill an
d co
nstit
ute
the
activ
ities
of
Stat
es,
in t
he s
ame
man
ner
as d
o le
gal
deci
sion
s or
adm
inis
trativ
e m
easu
res.
The
Cou
rt is
cer
tain
ly n
ot c
alle
d up
on t
o in
terp
ret t
he P
olis
h la
w a
s su
ch;
but t
here
is n
othi
ng t
o pr
even
t th
e C
ourt’
s gi
ving
judg
men
t on
the
que
stio
n w
heth
er o
r no
t, in
app
lyin
g th
at l
aw,
Pola
nd i
s ac
ting
in c
onfo
rmity
with
its
obl
igat
ions
tow
ards
G
erm
any
unde
r the
Gen
eva
Con
vent
ion.
(Cer
tain
Ger
man
Int
eres
ts i
n P
olis
h U
pper
Sile
sia,
Mer
its,
Judg
men
t N
o.7,
192
6, P
.C.I.
J. S
erie
s A
, No.
7, p
. 19)
227.
As
alre
ady
indi
cate
d in
its
Judg
men
t in
the
M/V
“SA
IGA
”(N
o. 2
)Cas
e, th
e
Trib
unal
obs
erve
s th
at, u
nder
sev
eral
pro
visi
ons
of th
e C
onve
ntio
n, it
is c
alle
d up
on
to d
eter
min
e w
heth
er, i
n en
actin
g or
impl
emen
ting
its la
w, a
Sta
te P
arty
has
act
ed in
conf
orm
ity w
ith th
e C
onve
ntio
n(s
ee M
/V “S
AIG
A”(
No.
2)(
Sai
nt V
ince
nt a
nd th
e
Gre
nadi
nes
v.G
uine
a),J
udgm
ent,
ITLO
S R
epor
ts 1
999,
p. 1
0, a
t p. 5
2, p
ara.
121)
.
228.
The
rele
vant
pro
visi
ons
of G
uine
a-B
issa
u’s
legi
slat
ion
are
artic
les
3 an
d 23
of
Dec
ree-
Law
6-A
/200
0,th
e te
xts
of w
hich
are
repr
oduc
ed in
par
agra
ph 1
90,a
s w
ell
as a
rticl
e 39
of D
ecre
e 4/
96,w
hich
read
s:
Artic
le 3
9(L
ogis
tical
sup
port
and
trans
hipm
ent o
pera
tions
)
[Tra
nsla
tion
into
Eng
lish
prov
ided
by
Gui
nea-
Biss
au
inpa
ragr
aph
96 o
f its
Cou
nter
-Mem
oria
l]
1.Lo
gist
ical
sup
port
oper
atio
ns f
or v
esse
ls t
hat
oper
ate
in w
ater
s un
der
natio
nal
sove
reig
nty
and
juris
dict
ion,
suc
h as
pro
visi
onin
g w
ith
vict
uals
, fue
l, th
e de
liver
y or
rec
eipt
of f
ishi
ng m
ater
ials
and
the
trans
fer
of
crew
s, a
nd t
rans
hipm
ent
of c
atch
es m
ust
be p
revi
ousl
y an
d sp
ecifi
cally
au
thor
ised
by
the
Min
istry
of F
ishe
ries.
2.R
eque
sts
for
the
auth
oriz
atio
n of
the
oper
atio
ns c
onsi
dere
d in
the
prev
ious
num
ber m
ust b
e m
ade
at le
ast t
en (1
0) d
ays
prio
r to
the
expe
cted
da
te o
f ent
ry in
the
wat
ers
unde
r the
sov
erei
gnty
and
juris
dict
ion
of G
uine
a-Bi
ssau
of t
he v
esse
ls th
at s
houl
d pe
rform
sai
d op
erat
ions
and
incl
ude
the
follo
win
g in
form
atio
n:
a)A
prec
ise
desc
riptio
n of
pla
nned
ope
ratio
ns;
b)Id
entif
icat
ion
and
char
acte
ristic
s of
the
vess
els
used
for
logi
stic
al
supp
ort o
r tra
nshi
pmen
t of c
atch
es a
nd th
e tim
e to
be
spen
t in
the
wat
ers
of G
uine
a-Bi
ssau
;c)
Iden
tific
atio
n of
the
ves
sels
tha
t w
ill be
nefit
fro
m o
pera
tions
of
logi
stic
al s
uppo
rt or
tran
ship
men
t of c
atch
es.
3.In
no
ev
ent
may
th
e be
nefic
iarie
s of
ope
ratio
ns
of
logi
stic
al
supp
ort
or t
rans
hipm
ent
of c
atch
es b
e ve
ssel
s th
at d
o no
t ho
ld a
val
id
fishi
ng li
cenc
e.
4.Th
e M
inis
ter
of F
ishe
ries
may
dec
ide
that
the
ope
ratio
ns o
f lo
gist
ical
sup
port
or t
rans
hipm
ent
of c
atch
es t
ake
plac
e in
a d
efin
ed a
rea
and
at a
giv
en ti
me
and
in th
e pr
esen
ce o
f qua
lifie
d m
ariti
me
enfo
rcem
ent
offic
ers.
229.
The
Trib
unal
take
s no
te o
f the
arg
umen
ts a
dvan
ced
by P
anam
a,in
par
ticul
ar
the
argu
men
t tha
t the
sco
pe o
f the
juris
dict
ion
clai
med
by
Gui
nea-
Biss
au is
def
ined
too
wid
ely.
The
Trib
unal
, how
ever
, hol
ds th
at th
e de
finiti
on o
f fis
hing
-rela
ted
activ
ities
cont
aine
din
arti
cle
3of
Dec
ree-
Law
6-A
/200
0es
tabl
ishe
s in
suf
ficie
ntly
cle
ar te
rms
that
the
legi
slat
ion
of G
uine
a-B
issa
u on
ly e
ncom
pass
es a
ctiv
ities
whi
ch d
irect
ly
supp
ort f
ishi
ng a
ctiv
ities
in it
sex
clus
ive
econ
omic
zon
e.
230.
The
Trib
unal
wis
hes
now
to a
ddre
ss th
e qu
estio
n re
latin
g to
the
paym
ent o
f
fees
whi
ch a
re im
pose
d by
Gui
nea-
Bis
sau
for g
rant
ing
auth
oriz
atio
n fo
r bun
kerin
g.
231.
Pan
ama
alle
ges
that
the
paym
ent i
n qu
estio
n co
nstit
utes
a ta
x ra
ther
than
a
fee,
whe
reas
Gui
nea-
Biss
au a
sser
tsth
at th
is p
aym
ent c
onst
itute
s a
fee.
232.
In th
is c
onte
xt th
e Tr
ibun
al re
fers
to it
s Ju
dgm
ent i
n th
e M
/V “S
AIG
A” (
No.
2)
Cas
e,w
here
it s
tate
d in
par
agra
ph 1
27:
The
Trib
unal
not
es th
at, u
nder
the
Con
vent
ion,
a c
oast
al S
tate
is e
ntitl
ed
to a
pply
cus
tom
s la
ws
and
regu
latio
ns in
its
terr
itoria
l sea
(ar
ticle
s 2
and
21).
In th
e co
ntig
uous
zon
e, a
coa
stal
Sta
te
may
exe
rcis
e th
e co
ntro
l nec
essa
ry to
:(a
) pr
even
t in
fring
emen
t of
its
cus
tom
s, f
isca
l, im
mig
ratio
n or
sa
nita
ry l
aws
and
regu
latio
ns w
ithin
its
ter
ritor
y or
ter
ritor
ial
sea;
(b)
puni
sh
infri
ngem
ent
of
the
abov
e la
ws
and
regu
latio
ns
com
mitt
ed w
ithin
its
terr
itory
or t
errit
oria
l sea
.(a
rticl
e 33
, par
agra
ph1)
Inth
e ex
clus
ive
econ
omic
zon
e, th
e co
asta
l Sta
te h
as ju
risdi
ctio
n to
app
ly
cust
oms
law
s an
d re
gula
tions
in r
espe
ct o
f ar
tific
ial i
slan
ds,
inst
alla
tions
an
d st
ruct
ures
(ar
ticle
60,
par
agra
ph 2
). In
the
vie
w o
f th
e Tr
ibun
al,
the
Con
vent
ion
does
not
em
pow
er a
coa
stal
Sta
te to
app
ly it
s cu
stom
s la
ws
in
resp
ect
of
any
othe
r pa
rts
of
the
excl
usiv
e ec
onom
ic
zone
no
t m
entio
ned
abov
e.(M
/V “
SA
IGA
”(N
o. 2
)(S
aint
Vin
cent
and
the
Gre
nadi
nes
v.G
uine
a),
Judg
men
t, IT
LOS
Rep
orts
199
9, p
. 10,
at p
. 54,
par
a. 1
27)
233.
The
Trib
unal
uph
olds
this
find
ing,
whi
chap
plie
s to
law
s on
taxe
s as
it d
oes
to
law
s co
ncer
ning
cus
tom
s.
234.
In v
iew
of t
he e
xpla
natio
n pr
ovid
ed b
y G
uine
a-B
issa
u(s
ee p
arag
raph
s 20
1to
204)
, the
Trib
unal
is s
atis
fied
that
the
char
ging
of fe
esby
Gui
nea-
Bis
sau
is n
ot
guid
ed b
y its
fisca
l int
eres
ts b
ut is
for s
ervi
ces
rend
ered
in c
onne
ctio
n w
ith th
e
auth
oriz
atio
n of
bun
kerin
g. C
onse
quen
tly, t
heTr
ibun
al c
onsi
ders
that
the
impo
sitio
n
of th
e fe
e by
Gui
nea-
Bis
sau
does
not
con
stitu
te a
n at
tem
pt to
ext
end
its ta
x an
d
cust
oms
legi
slat
ion
to th
e ex
clus
ive
econ
omic
zon
e,as
cla
imed
by
Pana
ma.
235.
With
refe
renc
eto
the
ques
tion
of th
e pr
oced
ure
for o
btai
ning
an
auth
oriz
atio
n
for b
unke
ring,
the
Trib
unal
hol
ds th
at th
is–
if pr
oper
lyfo
llow
ed–
is n
ot u
ndul
y
burd
enso
me
for a
n ap
plic
ant.
In p
artic
ular
, the
Trib
unal
doe
s no
t con
side
r it a
n
undu
e bu
rden
for b
unke
ring
vess
els
to o
btai
n su
chau
thor
izat
ion
in w
ritin
g.
236.
For t
hese
reas
ons,
the
Trib
unal
hol
ds th
at th
e re
leva
nt n
atio
nal l
egis
latio
n of
Gui
nea-
Bis
sau
conf
orm
s to
arti
cles
56 a
nd 6
2, p
arag
raph
4, o
f the
Con
vent
ion.
237.
The
Trib
unal
will
now
turn
to th
e qu
estio
n w
heth
er th
e M
/V V
irgin
ia G
obta
ined
the
requ
ired
auth
oriz
atio
n fo
r bun
kerin
g.
238.
Pan
ama
argu
es th
at if
the
regu
latio
n by
the
coas
tal S
tate
of b
unke
ring
of
fishi
ng v
esse
ls in
the
excl
usiv
e ec
onom
ic z
one
is c
onsi
dere
d to
be
com
patib
le w
ith
the
Con
vent
ion,
then
the
M/V
Virg
inia
Ghe
ldan
aut
horiz
atio
n un
der t
he la
ws
and
regu
latio
ns o
f Gui
nea-
Bis
sau
to p
rovi
de b
unke
ring
serv
ices
to th
e Am
abal
II.
239.
Pan
ama
mai
ntai
nsth
at “t
he V
IRG
INIA
Gdi
d, in
fact
, hav
e th
e au
thor
isat
ion
to
prov
ide
bunk
erin
g se
rvic
es to
the
AM
AB
AL II
…, a
nd th
at,t
here
fore
, the
requ
irem
ents
of t
he la
w o
f Gui
nea
Bis
sau
wer
e re
spec
ted
and
fulfi
lled
by th
e
VIR
GIN
IA G
, her
cap
tain
and
ow
ners
”.
240.
Pan
ama
desc
ribes
the
proc
edur
e fo
r bun
kerin
g as
follo
ws:
The
loca
tion,
or
way
poi
nt, f
or r
efue
lling
is g
ener
ally
agr
eed
a fe
w w
eeks
or
day
s in
adv
ance
, bet
wee
n th
e ow
ners
/ope
rato
rs o
f the
Virg
inia
Gan
d he
r cu
stom
ers,
tak
ing
into
acc
ount
the
par
ticul
ar r
oute
s of
the
ves
sels
. C
ontra
ctua
l arr
ange
men
ts a
re m
ade
on-s
hore
…In
stru
ctio
ns a
nd o
rder
s ar
e th
en e
xecu
ted
by e
mai
l, ra
dio,
tel
epho
ne,
or o
ther
mea
ns,
betw
een
International Court of Justice
Maritime Delimitation in the Black Sea
(Romania v. Ukraine)
Judgment
I.C.J. Reports 2009, pp. 101-103, 110-130; paras. 115-122, 150-204, 210-218
COU
RIN
TERN
ATIO
NALE
DE
JUST
ICE
RECU
EIL
DES
ARRE|TS,
AVIS
CON
SULTATIF
SET
ORD
ON
NAN
CES
DEuLIM
ITATIO
NM
ARIT
IME
EN
MER
NOIR
E
(ROU
MAN
IEc.
UK
RAIN
E)
AR
RE|
TD
U3
FEu
VR
IER
2009
2009
INTERN
ATIO
NAL
COU
RT
OF
JUST
ICE
REPORTS
OF
JUD
GM
EN
TS,
AD
VIS
ORY
OPIN
ION
SAN
DORD
ERS
MARIT
IME
DELIM
ITATIO
NIN
TH
EBLACK
SEA
(ROM
AN
IAv.
UK
RAIN
E)
JUD
GM
EN
TO
F3
FE
BR
UA
RY
2009
Mod
eof
ficielde
cita
tion
:D
élim
ita
tio
nm
ari
tim
een
mer
No
ire
(R
ou
ma
nie
c.U
kra
ine)
,a
rrêt
,C
.I.J
.R
ecu
eil
20
09,p.
61
Offi
cial
cita
tion
:M
ari
tim
eD
elim
ita
tio
nin
the
Bla
ckS
ea(
Ro
ma
nia
v.U
kra
ine)
,J
ud
gm
ent,
I.C
.J.
Rep
ort
s2
00
9,p.
61
ISSN
0074
-444
1IS
BN
978-
92-1
-071
059-
6
Sal
esnu
mbe
rN
ode
vent
e:95
0
DEuLIM
ITATIO
NM
ARIT
IME
EN
MER
NOIR
E
(ROU
MAN
IEc.
UK
RAIN
E)
MARIT
IME
DELIM
ITATIO
NIN
TH
EBLACK
SEA
(ROM
AN
IAv.
UK
RAIN
E)
3FEuVRIE
R20
09
ARRE|T
3FEBRU
ARY
2009
JUD
GM
EN
T
7.D
ELIM
ITATIO
NM
ETH
OD
OLOG
Y
115.
Whe
nca
lled
upon
tode
limit
the
cont
inen
talsh
elfor
exclus
ive
econ
omic
zone
s,or
todr
awasing
lede
limitat
ion
line,
theCou
rtpr
ocee
dsin
defin
edstag
es.
116.
The
sese
para
testag
es,br
oadl
yex
plaine
din
the
case
conc
erni
ngC
on
tin
enta
lS
hel
f(
Lib
ya
nA
rab
Ja
ma
hir
iya
/Ma
lta
)(J
ud
gm
ent,
I.C
.J.
Rep
ort
s1
98
5,p
.46,
para
.60)
,hav
ein
rece
ntde
cade
sbe
ensp
ecifi
edwith
prec
isio
n.First,th
eCou
rtwill
esta
blish
apr
ovisio
nalde
limitat
ion
line,
usin
gm
etho
dsth
atar
ege
ometrica
llyob
jectivean
dalso
appr
opriat
efo
rth
ege
ogra
phy
ofth
ear
eain
whi
chth
ede
limitat
ion
isto
take
plac
e.So
faras
delim
itat
ion
betw
een
adjace
ntco
asts
isco
ncer
ned,
aneq
uidi
stan
celin
ewill
bedr
awn
unless
ther
ear
eco
mpe
lling
reas
onsth
atm
aketh
isun
-feas
ible
inth
epa
rticul
arca
se(see
Ter
rito
ria
la
nd
Ma
riti
me
Dis
pu
teb
etw
een
Nic
ara
gu
aa
nd
Ho
nd
ura
sin
the
Ca
rib
bea
nS
ea(
Nic
ara
gu
av.
Ho
nd
ura
s),
Ju
dg
men
t,I.
C.J
.R
epo
rts
20
07
(II
),p.
745,
para
.28
1).So
faras
oppo
site
coas
tsar
eco
ncer
ned,
thepr
ovisio
nald
elim
itat
ion
linewill
cons
istof
am
edian
line
betw
een
the
two
coas
ts.N
olega
lco
nseq
uenc
esflo
wfrom
the
use
ofth
eterm
s“m
edian
line”
and
“equ
idista
nce
line”
sinc
eth
em
etho
dof
delim
itat
ion
isth
esa
mefo
rbo
th.
117.
Equ
idista
nce
and
med
ian
lines
are
tobe
cons
truc
ted
from
the
mos
tap
prop
riat
epo
ints
onth
eco
asts
ofth
etw
oSt
ates
conc
erne
d,with
particul
arat
tent
ion
bein
gpa
idto
thos
epr
otub
eran
tco
asta
lpo
ints
situ
-at
edne
ares
tto
thear
eato
thede
limited
.The
Cou
rtco
nsid
erselse
whe
re(see
para
grap
hs13
5-13
7be
low)th
eex
tent
towhi
chth
eCou
rtm
ay,w
hen
cons
truc
ting
asing
le-p
urpo
sede
limitat
ion
line,
deviat
efrom
the
base
poin
tsse
lected
byth
ePar
ties
forth
eirterritor
ials
eas.
Whe
nco
nstruc
tion
ofa
prov
isio
naleq
uidi
stan
celin
ebe
twee
nad
jace
ntSt
ates
isca
lled
for,
theCou
rtwill
have
inm
ind
cons
ider
atio
nsre
lating
tobo
thPar
ties
’coa
st-
lines
whe
nch
oosing
itsow
nba
sepo
ints
forth
ispu
rpos
e.The
line
thus
adop
ted
ishe
avily
depe
nden
ton
the
phys
ical
geog
raph
yan
dth
em
ost
seaw
ard
poin
tsof
thetw
oco
asts.
118.
Inke
epin
gwith
its
settled
jurisp
rude
nce
onm
aritim
ede
limita-
tion
,the
first
stag
eof
theCou
rt’s
appr
oach
isto
esta
blish
thepr
ovisio
nal
equi
distan
celin
e.Atth
isin
itialstag
eof
the
cons
truc
tion
ofth
epr
ovi-
sion
aleq
uidi
stan
celin
eth
eCou
rtis
notye
tco
ncer
ned
with
any
releva
ntcirc
umstan
cesth
atm
ayob
tain
and
thelin
eis
plot
ted
onstrictly
geom
etri-
calcr
iter
iaon
theba
sisof
objectiveda
ta.
119.
Inth
epr
esen
tca
seth
eCou
rtwill
thus
begin
bydr
awin
ga
prov
i-sion
aleq
uidi
stan
celin
ebe
twee
nth
ead
jace
ntco
asts
ofRom
ania
and
Ukr
aine
,whi
chwill
then
cont
inue
asa
med
ian
linebe
twee
nth
eirop
po-
site
coas
ts.
120.
The
cour
seof
thefin
allin
esh
ould
resu
ltin
aneq
uita
bleso
lution
(Articles74
and
83of
UN
CLOS)
.The
refo
re,th
eCou
rtwill
atth
ene
xt,
seco
ndstag
eco
nsid
erwhe
ther
ther
ear
efa
ctor
sca
lling
forth
ead
justm
ent
orsh
ifting
ofth
epr
ovisio
naleq
uidi
stan
celin
ein
orde
rto
achi
eve
aneq
uita
ble
resu
lt(L
an
da
nd
Ma
riti
me
Bo
un
da
ryb
etw
een
Ca
mer
oo
na
nd
101
MARIT
IME
DELIM
ITATIO
N(J
UD
GM
EN
T)
102
MARIT
IME
DELIM
ITATIO
N(J
UD
GM
EN
T)
Nig
eria
(C
am
ero
on
v.N
iger
ia:
Eq
ua
tori
al
Gu
inea
inte
rven
ing
),
Ju
dg
-m
ent,
I.C
.J.
Rep
ort
s2
00
2,p.
441,
para
.28
8).The
Cou
rtha
salso
mad
eclea
rth
atwhe
nth
elin
eto
bedr
awn
cove
rsse
vera
lzo
nesof
coin
cide
ntju
risd
iction
s,“t
heso
-called
equi
tabl
epr
incipl
es/relev
ant
circ
umstan
ces
metho
dm
ayus
eful
lybe
appl
ied,
asin
thes
em
aritim
ezo
nesth
ism
etho
dis
also
suited
toac
hiev
ing
aneq
uita
blere
sult”
(Ter
rito
ria
la
nd
Ma
riti
me
Dis
pu
teb
etw
een
Nic
ara
gu
aa
nd
Ho
nd
ura
sin
the
Ca
rib
bea
nS
ea(
Nic
a-
rag
ua
v.H
on
du
ras)
,J
ud
gm
ent,
I.C
.J.
Rep
ort
s2
00
7(
II),
p.74
1,pa
ra.27
1).
121.
Thi
sis
the
seco
ndpa
rtof
the
delim
itat
ion
exer
cise
towhi
chth
eCou
rtwill
turn
,hav
ing
first
esta
blishe
dth
epr
ovisio
nale
quid
ista
ncelin
e.12
2.Fin
ally,a
ndat
ath
ird
stag
e,th
eCou
rtwill
verify
that
thelin
e(a
prov
isio
naleq
uidi
stan
celin
ewhi
chm
ayor
may
notha
vebe
enad
justed
byta
king
into
acco
untth
ere
leva
ntcirc
umstan
ces)
does
not,
asit
stan
ds,
lead
toan
ineq
uita
ble
resu
ltby
reas
onof
any
mar
ked
disp
ropo
rtio
nbe
twee
nth
era
tio
ofth
ere
spec
tive
coas
talleng
thsan
dth
era
tio
betw
een
there
leva
ntm
aritim
ear
eaof
each
Stat
eby
refere
nceto
thede
limitat
ion
line
(see
para
grap
hs21
4-21
5).A
final
chec
kfo
ran
equi
tabl
eou
tcom
een
tails
aco
nfirm
atio
nth
atno
grea
tdi
spro
portio
nalit
yof
mar
itim
ear
eas
isev
iden
tby
com
pariso
nto
thera
tio
ofco
asta
lleng
ths.
Thi
sis
notto
sugg
estth
atth
esere
spec
tive
area
ssh
ould
bepr
opor
tion
-at
eto
coas
talleng
ths—
asth
eCou
rtha
ssa
id“t
hesh
arin
gou
tof
the
area
isth
erefor
eth
eco
nseq
uenc
eof
the
delim
itat
ion,
not
vice
versa”
(Ma
riti
me
Del
imit
ati
on
inth
eA
rea
bet
wee
nG
reen
lan
da
nd
Ja
nM
ay
en(
Den
ma
rkv.
No
rwa
y)
,J
ud
gm
ent,
I.C
.J.
Rep
ort
s1
99
3,p.
67,pa
ra.64
).
8.E
STABLIS
HM
EN
TOF
TH
EP
ROVIS
ION
AL
EQU
IDIS
TAN
CE
LIN
E
8.1
.S
elec
tio
no
fB
ase
Po
ints
123.
Rom
ania
cont
ends
that
the
base
poin
tsto
take
into
acco
unt
inco
nstruc
ting
the
prov
isio
naleq
uidi
stan
celin
ebe
twee
nth
ead
jace
ntco
asts
ofRom
ania
and
Ukr
aine
are,
onth
eRom
anian
coas
t,th
ese
awar
den
dof
the
Sulin
ady
ke,an
don
the
Ukr
aini
anco
ast,
apo
int
onth
eisland
ofK
uban
sky
and
Cap
eBur
nas.
Inad
dition
,in
Rom
ania’s
view
,th
eba
sepo
ints
onth
eop
posite
coas
tsof
Rom
ania
and
Ukr
aine
are,
onth
eRom
anian
coas
t,th
ese
awar
den
dof
the
Sulin
ady
kean
dth
eou
ter
end
ofth
eSa
calin
Pen
insu
la,an
don
the
Ukr
aini
anco
ast,
Cap
esTar
khan
kut
and
Khe
rson
es.Rom
ania
poin
tsou
tth
atth
eSa
c-alin
Pen
insu
laan
dth
em
ost
seaw
ard
poin
tof
the
Sulin
ady
kear
eam
ong
the
releva
ntpo
ints
notifie
dby
Rom
ania
toth
eU
nited
Nat
ions
unde
rArticle
16of
UN
CLOS
for
mea
suring
the
brea
dth
ofth
eter-
rito
rial
sea.
124.
Rom
ania
argu
esth
atno
acco
untsh
ould
beta
ken
ofSe
rpen
ts’
103
MARIT
IME
DELIM
ITATIO
N(J
UD
GM
EN
T)
som
e20
naut
ical
mile
saw
ayfrom
them
ainl
and,
isno
ton
eof
aclus
terof
frin
geisland
sco
nstitu
ting
“the
coas
t”of
Ukr
aine
.
To
coun
tSe
rpen
ts’I
slan
das
are
leva
ntpa
rtof
theco
astwou
ldam
ount
togr
afting
anex
tran
eous
elem
enton
toU
kraine
’sco
astlin
e;th
eco
nse-
quen
cewou
ldbe
aju
dicial
refa
shio
ning
ofge
ogra
phy,
whi
chne
ithe
rth
elaw
norpr
actice
ofm
aritim
ede
limitat
ion
auth
orizes
.The
Cou
rtis
thus
ofth
eview
that
Serp
ents’I
slan
dca
nnot
beta
ken
tofo
rmpa
rtof
Ukr
aine
’sco
asta
lco
nfigu
ration
(cf.
theisletof
Filfl
ain
theca
seco
ncer
ning
Co
nti
-n
enta
lS
hel
f(
Lib
ya
nA
rab
Ja
ma
hir
iya
/Ma
lta
),
Ju
dg
men
t,I.
C.J
.R
epo
rts
19
85,p.
13).
For
this
reas
on,t
heCou
rtco
nsid
ersit
inap
prop
riat
eto
select
anyba
sepo
ints
onSe
rpen
ts’Island
forth
eco
nstruc
tion
ofa
prov
isio
naleq
uidi
s-ta
ncelin
ebe
twee
nth
eco
asts
ofRom
ania
and
Ukr
aine
.Fur
ther
aspe
cts
releva
ntto
Serp
ents’Island
are
dealt
with
atpa
ragr
aphs
179
to18
8be
low.
8.2
.C
on
stru
ctio
no
fth
eP
rovi
sio
na
lE
qu
idis
tan
ceL
ine
150.
Rom
ania
argu
esth
atth
efir
stse
gmen
tof
them
aritim
ebo
unda
ryde
limitin
gth
em
aritim
ear
easof
thetw
oSt
ates
situ
ated
beyo
ndth
eirter-
rito
rial
seas
was
esta
blishe
dby
succ
essive
agre
emen
tsbe
twee
nRom
ania
and
the
Soviet
Uni
on:from
the
final
poin
tof
the
boun
dary
sepa
rating
theterritor
ials
easof
thetw
oSt
ates
at45
°05′
21″N
and
30°0
2′27
″E,t
hem
aritim
ebo
unda
rypa
sses
alon
gth
e12
-nau
tica
l-m
ilear
cof
the
circ
lear
ound
Serp
ents’Island
untilit
reac
hesa
poin
tsitu
ated
onth
atar
cat
45°1
4′20
″N
and
30°2
9′12
″E
(see
Sectio
n4)
.Rom
ania
cont
ends
that
the
mar
itim
ebo
unda
rybe
yond
that
poin
twas
neve
rde
limited
betw
eenRom
a-ni
aan
dth
eU
SSR
orU
kraine
.Rom
ania
draw
sa
prov
isio
naleq
uidi
s-ta
ncelin
efrom
thefin
alpo
intof
theland
/river
boun
dary
betw
een
thetw
oSt
ates
taki
ngin
toac
coun
tth
esa
lient
base
poin
tsof
thead
jace
ntRom
a-ni
anan
dU
kraini
anco
asts.The
sear
e:on
theRom
anian
coas
t,th
ese
a-war
den
dof
theSu
lina
dyke
;an
don
theU
kraini
anco
ast,
theisland
ofK
uban
sky
and
Cap
eBur
nas.
Asth
epo
intlyin
gon
the
arc
arou
ndSe
r-pe
nts’
Island
at45
°14′
20″
Nan
d30
°29′
12″
E,is
notsitu
ated
onth
eeq
uidi
stan
celin
e,bu
tab
out2.5
naut
ical
mile
sto
theno
rth,
thede
limita-
tion
ofth
em
aritim
ebo
unda
rybe
yond
this
poin
tm
ust,
inRom
ania’s
view
,sta
rtby
join
ingit
toth
epr
ovisio
nale
quid
ista
ncelin
e.The
lineth
usdr
awn
passes
thro
ugh
the
poin
tat
45°1
1′59
″N
and
30°4
9′16
″E,situ
-at
edpr
actica
llym
idway
betw
een
the
12-n
autica
l-m
ilear
car
ound
Ser-
pent
s’Island
and
the
trip
oint
asbe
twee
nth
eRom
anian
and
Ukr
aini
anad
jace
ntco
asts
and
theop
posite
Crim
ean
coas
t,situ
ated
at45
°09′
45″N
and
31°0
8′40
″E.Rom
ania
cont
ends
that
,from
this
poin
tso
uthw
ards
,th
ede
limitat
ion
isgo
vern
edby
the
oppo
site
Rom
anian
and
Ukr
aini
anco
asts.
110
MARIT
IME
DELIM
ITATIO
N(J
UD
GM
EN
T)
151.
Rom
ania
calcul
ates
them
edian
lineta
king
into
acco
untth
esa
li-en
tba
sepo
ints
onth
ere
leva
ntop
posite
coas
tsof
thetw
oSt
ates
(the
sea-
war
den
dof
theSu
lina
dyke
and
theou
teren
dof
theSa
calin
Pen
insu
laon
the
Rom
anian
coas
t,an
dCap
esTar
khan
kutan
dK
herson
eson
the
Ukr
aini
anco
ast).Rom
ania’s
equi
distan
celin
ein
the
sector
ofop
posite
coas
tsth
usco
incide
swith
these
gmen
tof
them
edian
lineru
nnin
gfrom
,in
theno
rth,
thetrip
oint
asbe
twee
nth
eRom
anian
and
Ukr
aini
anad
ja-
cent
coas
tsan
dth
eop
posite
Crim
ean
coas
tto
,in
the
sout
h,th
epo
int
beyo
ndwhi
chth
ein
tere
stsof
third
Stat
esm
aybe
affected
,whi
chRom
a-ni
asitu
ates
at43
°26′
50″N
and
31°2
0′10
″E.
*
152.
Ukr
aine
maint
ains
that
thepr
ovisio
naleq
uidi
stan
celin
em
ustbe
cons
truc
ted
byre
fere
nceto
theba
sepo
ints
onea
chPar
ty’s
base
lines
from
whi
chth
ebr
eadt
hof
itsterritor
ialse
ais
mea
sure
d.Thu
s,on
theRom
a-ni
anside
,U
kraine
uses
theba
sepo
ints
atth
ese
awar
den
dof
theSu
lina
dyke
and
onth
eSa
calin
Pen
insu
la.On
its
own
side
,it
uses
the
base
poin
tson
Serp
ents’Island
and
atth
etip
ofCap
eK
herson
es.The
prov
i-sion
aleq
uidi
stan
celin
ead
voca
ted
byU
kraine
star
tsat
thepo
intof
inter-
sectio
nof
the
territor
ialse
asof
the
Par
ties
iden
tifie
din
Article
1of
the
2003
Stat
eBor
derRég
ime
Tre
aty
(45°
05′2
1″N
and
30°0
2′27
″E).
The
lineth
enru
nsin
aso
uthe
rlydi
rectio
nun
tilt
hepo
intat
44°4
8′24
″N
and
30°1
0′56
″E,a
fter
whi
chit
turn
sto
run
inaso
uth-
easter
lydi
rectio
nun
til
thepo
intat
43°5
5′33
″N
and
31°2
3′26
″E
and
ther
eafter
cont
inue
sdu
eso
uth.
**
153.
The
Cou
rtre
calls
that
theba
sepo
ints
whi
chm
ustbe
used
inco
n-stru
ctin
gth
epr
ovisio
nale
quid
ista
ncelin
ear
eth
osesitu
ated
onth
eSa
ca-
linPen
insu
laan
dth
eland
war
den
dof
theSu
lina
dyke
onth
eRom
anian
coas
t,an
dTsy
gank
aIsland
,Cap
eTar
khan
kutan
dCap
eK
herson
eson
theU
kraini
anco
ast.
154.
Initsin
itials
egm
entth
epr
ovisio
nale
quid
ista
ncelin
ebe
twee
nth
eRom
anian
and
Ukr
aini
anad
jace
ntco
asts
isco
ntro
lled
byba
sepo
ints
loca
ted
onth
eland
war
den
dof
theSu
lina
dyke
onth
eRom
anian
coas
tan
dso
uth-
easter
ntip
ofTsy
gank
aIsland
onth
eU
kraini
anco
ast.
Itru
nsin
aso
uth-
easter
lydi
rectio
n,from
apo
intlyin
gm
idway
betw
een
thes
etw
oba
sepo
ints,un
tilPoi
ntA
(with
co-o
rdin
ates
44°4
6′38
.7″
Nan
d30
°58′
37.3
″E)whe
reit
beco
mes
affected
bya
base
poin
tlo
cated
onth
eSa
calin
Pen
insu
laon
the
Rom
anian
coas
t.AtPoi
ntA
the
equi
distan
celin
eslight
lych
ange
sdi
rectio
nan
dco
ntin
ues
toPoi
ntB
(with
co-
ordi
nates44
°44′
13.4
″N
and
31°1
0′27
.7″E)whe
reit
beco
mes
affected
byth
eba
sepo
intl
ocat
edon
Cap
eTar
khan
kuto
nU
kraine
’sop
posite
coas
ts.
111
MARIT
IME
DELIM
ITATIO
N(J
UD
GM
EN
T)
AtPoi
ntB
theeq
uidi
stan
celin
etu
rnsso
uth-
sout
h-ea
stan
dco
ntin
uesto
Poi
ntC
(with
co-o
rdin
ates
44°0
2′53
.0″N
and
31°2
4′35
.0″E),
calcul
ated
with
refere
nceto
base
poin
tson
theSa
calin
Pen
insu
laon
theRom
anian
coas
tan
dCap
esTar
khan
kut
and
Khe
rson
eson
the
Ukr
aini
anco
ast.
Fro
mPo
intC
theeq
uidi
stan
celin
e,star
tingat
anaz
imut
hof
185°
23′5
4.5″
4 ,ru
nsin
aso
uthe
rly
dire
ctio
n.Thi
slin
ere
mains
gove
rned
byth
eba
sepo
ints
onth
eSa
calin
Pen
insu
laon
theRom
anian
coas
tan
dCap
eK
her-
sone
son
theU
kraini
anco
ast.
(For
theco
nstruc
tion
ofth
eeq
uidi
stan
celin
ese
esk
etch
-map
sN
os.6
and
7,pp
.11
4-11
5.)
9.R
ELEVAN
TC
IRCU
MST
AN
CES
155.
Asth
eCou
rtin
dica
ted
abov
e(p
arag
raph
s12
0-12
1),o
nceth
epr
o-vision
aleq
uidi
stan
celin
eha
sbe
endr
awn,
itsh
all“
then
[con
side
r]whe
ther
ther
ear
efa
ctor
sca
lling
forth
ead
justm
entor
shifting
ofth
atlin
ein
orde
rto
achi
eve
an‘equ
itab
lere
sult’”
(La
nd
an
dM
ari
tim
eB
ou
nd
ary
bet
wee
nC
am
ero
on
an
dN
iger
ia(
Ca
mer
oo
nv.
Nig
eria
:E
qu
ato
ria
lG
uin
eain
ter-
ven
ing
),
Ju
dg
men
t,I.
C.J
.R
epo
rts
20
02,p.
441,
para
.28
8).Su
chfa
ctor
sha
veus
ually
been
referred
toin
theju
risp
rude
nceof
theCou
rt,s
ince
the
No
rth
Sea
Co
nti
nen
tal
Sh
elf
(F
eder
al
Rep
ub
lic
of
Ger
ma
ny
/Den
ma
rk;
Fed
era
lR
epu
bli
co
fG
erm
an
y/N
eth
erla
nd
s)ca
ses,
asth
ere
leva
ntcirc
um-
stan
ces(J
ud
gm
ent,
I.C
.J.
Rep
ort
s1
96
9,p
.53,
para
.53)
.The
irfu
nction
isto
verify
that
thepr
ovisio
nale
quid
ista
ncelin
e,dr
awn
byth
ege
ometrica
lm
etho
dfrom
the
determ
ined
base
poin
tson
the
coas
tsof
the
Par
ties
isno
t,in
light
ofth
epa
rticul
arcirc
umstan
cesof
theca
se,pe
rceive
das
in-
equi
tabl
e.If
such
wou
ldbe
theca
se,th
eCou
rtsh
ould
adju
stth
elin
ein
orde
rto
achi
eveth
e“e
quitab
leso
lution
”as
requ
ired
byArticles74
,par
a-gr
aph
1,an
d83
,pa
ragr
aph
1,of
UN
CLOS.
156.
The
Par
ties
sugg
ested
and
disc
usse
dse
vera
lfa
ctor
swhi
chth
eyco
nsid
eras
thepo
ssib
lere
leva
ntcirc
umstan
cesof
theca
se.T
heyar
rive
atdi
ffer
entco
nclu
sion
s.Rom
ania
argu
esth
atits
prov
isio
naleq
uidi
stan
celin
eac
hiev
esth
eeq
uita
ble
resu
ltan
dth
usdo
esno
tre
quire
any
adju
st-
men
t.U
kraine
,on
theot
herha
nd,s
ubm
itsth
atth
erear
ere
leva
ntcirc
um-
stan
ceswhi
chca
llfo
rth
ead
justm
entof
itspr
ovisio
naleq
uidi
stan
celin
e“b
ym
ovin
gth
epr
ovisio
nallin
eclos
erto
theRom
anian
coas
t”.
4The
geog
raph
ical
co-o
rdin
ates
used
byth
ePar
ties
forth
edr
awin
gof
theeq
uidi
stan
celin
espr
opos
edby
them
aregive
nby
refere
nceto
Pul
kovo
datu
m.T
heCou
rt,f
oritspa
rt,
hasch
osen
tous
eW
GS
84da
tum
.The
position
sof
Poi
ntsA,B
and
Car
egive
nby
ref-
eren
ceto
that
geod
etic
datu
m.T
heeq
uidi
stan
celin
ede
scribe
din
this
para
grap
his
age
o-de
ticlin
ean
dth
eaz
imut
hgive
nis
age
odetic
azim
uth
base
don
WG
S84
datu
m.
112
MARIT
IME
DELIM
ITATIO
N(J
UD
GM
EN
T)
157.
Befor
ead
dres
sing
the
releva
ntcirc
umstan
ces
referred
toby
the
Par
ties
,the
Cou
rtwishe
sto
reca
llth
atth
epr
ovisio
nale
quid
ista
ncelin
eit
hasdr
awn
inSe
ctio
n8ab
ovedo
esno
tco
incide
with
thepr
ovisio
nall
ines
draw
neith
erby
Ukr
aine
orRom
ania.T
here
fore
,itis
this
line,
draw
nby
theCou
rt,a
ndno
tby
Rom
ania
orU
kraine
,whi
chwill
bein
thefo
cusof
theCou
rt’s
attent
ion
whe
nan
alys
ing
wha
tth
ePar
ties
cons
ider
tobe
the
releva
ntcirc
umstan
cesof
theca
se.
9.1
.D
isp
rop
ort
ion
bet
wee
nL
eng
ths
of
Co
ast
s
158.
The
circ
umstan
cewhi
chU
kraine
invo
kes
inor
der
toju
stify
its
claim
that
thepr
ovisio
nale
quid
ista
ncelin
esh
ould
bead
justed
bym
ovin
gth
ede
limitat
ion
line
clos
erto
Rom
ania’s
coas
tis
the
disp
arity
betw
een
theleng
thof
thePar
ties
’co
asts
abut
ting
onth
ede
limitat
ion
area
.
*
159.
Rom
ania
ackn
owledg
esth
atth
ege
nera
lco
nfigu
ration
ofth
eco
asts
may
cons
titu
te,give
nth
epa
rticul
arge
ogra
phical
cont
ext,
are
le-
vant
circ
umstan
ceth
atca
nbe
take
nin
toco
nsid
erat
ion
with
aview
toad
justin
gth
eeq
uidi
stan
celin
e.H
owev
er,with
rega
rdsp
ecifi
cally
toan
ydi
spro
portio
nbe
twee
nth
eleng
thsof
thePar
ties
’co
asts,Rom
ania
notes
that
ina
mar
itim
ede
limitat
ion
itis
rare
forth
edi
spar
itiesbe
twee
nth
ePar
ties
’co
asts
tofeat
ure
asa
releva
ntcirc
umstan
ce.M
oreo
ver,
inth
epr
esen
tca
se,
ther
eis
nom
anifes
tdi
spar
ity
inth
ere
spec
tive
coas
tal
leng
thsof
Rom
ania
and
Ukr
aine
.16
0.Rom
ania
adds
that
inan
yev
entpr
opor
tion
ality
shou
ldbe
dealt
with
“onl
yaf
terha
ving
iden
tifie
dth
elin
ere
sultin
gfrom
theap
plicat
ion
ofth
eeq
uita
blepr
incipl
es/spe
cial
circ
umstan
cesap
proa
ch”.
161.
Inco
nclu
sion
Rom
ania
isof
theview
that
theallege
d“g
eogr
aphi
-ca
lpr
edom
inan
ceof
Ukr
aine
inth
ear
ea”
and
“the
disp
arity
betw
een
coas
talleng
ths”
ofth
ePar
ties
shou
ldno
tbe
cons
ider
edre
leva
ntcirc
um-
stan
cesin
theca
se.
*
162.
With
rega
rdto
thero
lewhi
chm
aybe
play
edby
theco
asta
lco
n-fig
urat
ion,
Ukr
aine
stat
esth
atth
ereis
abr
oad
mar
gin
ofap
prec
iation
asto
itssc
opeas
are
leva
ntcirc
umstan
ce.In
thecirc
umstan
cesof
thecu
r-re
ntca
se,U
kraine
argu
esth
atth
eco
asta
lcon
figur
atio
nclea
rlysh
owsth
ege
ogra
phical
pred
omin
ance
ofU
kraine
inth
ere
leva
ntar
eawhi
chalso
finds
anex
pres
sion
interm
sof
coas
talleng
th:th
eU
kraini
anre
leva
ntco
astis
mor
eth
anfo
urtim
eslo
nger
than
theco
astof
Rom
ania.U
kraine
notesth
atin
alm
ostallm
aritim
ede
limitat
ion
case
sde
altwith
byin
ter-
nation
altrib
unals,
“com
pariso
nof
theleng
thsof
there
leva
ntco
asts
has
occu
pied
aqu
ite
sign
ifica
ntpl
ace
and
even
play
eda
decisive
role
ina
num
berof
thede
cision
sta
ken”
.Thu
s,ac
cord
ingto
Ukr
aine
,the
mar
ked
113
MARIT
IME
DELIM
ITATIO
N(J
UD
GM
EN
T)
114
MARIT
IME
DELIM
ITATIO
N(J
UD
GM
EN
T)
115
MARIT
IME
DELIM
ITATIO
N(J
UD
GM
EN
T)
disp
ropo
rtio
nbe
twee
nleng
thsof
thePar
ties
’coa
stsis
are
leva
ntcirc
um-
stan
ceto
beta
ken
into
acco
untin
theco
nstruc
tion
ofa
delim
itat
ion
line
and
shou
ldre
sult
ina
shifting
ofth
epr
ovisio
naleq
uidi
stan
celin
ein
orde
rto
prod
ucean
equi
tabl
ere
sult.
**
163.
The
Cou
rtob
serv
esth
atth
ere
spec
tive
leng
thof
coas
tsca
npl
ayno
role
inid
entify
ing
theeq
uidi
stan
celin
ewhi
chha
sbe
enpr
ovisio
nally
esta
blishe
d.D
elim
itat
ion
isa
func
tion
whi
chis
differ
entfrom
theap
por-
tion
men
tof
reso
urce
sor
area
s(see
No
rth
Sea
Co
nti
nen
tal
Sh
elf
(F
eder
al
Rep
ub
lic
of
Ger
ma
ny
/Den
ma
rk;
Fed
era
lR
epu
bli
co
fG
erm
an
y/N
eth
er-
lan
ds)
,J
ud
gm
ent,
I.C
.J.
Rep
ort
s1
96
9,p
.22,
para
.18)
.The
reis
nopr
in-
cipl
eof
prop
ortion
ality
assu
chwhi
chbe
arson
thein
itiales
tabl
ishm
ent
ofth
epr
ovisio
naleq
uidi
stan
celin
e.16
4.W
here
disp
aritiesin
theleng
thsof
coas
tsar
epa
rticul
arly
mar
ked,
the
Cou
rtm
aych
oose
totrea
tth
atfa
ctof
geog
raph
yas
are
leva
ntcir-
cum
stan
ceth
atwou
ldre
quireso
mead
justm
ents
toth
epr
ovisio
naleq
ui-
distan
celin
eto
bem
ade.
165.
Inth
eca
seco
ncer
ning
La
nd
an
dM
ari
tim
eB
ou
nd
ary
bet
wee
nC
am
ero
on
an
dN
iger
ia(
Ca
mer
oo
nv.
Nig
eria
;E
qu
ato
ria
lG
uin
eain
ter-
ven
ing
),th
eCou
rtac
know
ledg
ed“t
hat
asu
bst
an
tia
ldi
ffer
ence
inth
eleng
thsof
the
parties’
resp
ective
coas
tlin
esm
ay
bea
factor
tobe
take
nin
toco
nsid
erat
ion
inor
derto
adju
stor
shiftth
epr
ovisio
nald
elim
itat
ion
line”
(Ju
dg
men
t,I.
C.J
.R
epo
rt2
00
2,p
.446
,par
a.30
1;e
mph
asis
adde
d),
alth
ough
itfo
und
that
inth
ecirc
umstan
cesth
erewas
nore
ason
tosh
ift
theeq
uidi
stan
celin
e.16
6.In
theca
seco
ncer
ning
Ma
riti
me
Del
imit
ati
on
inth
eA
rea
bet
wee
nG
reen
lan
da
nd
Ja
nM
ay
en(
Den
ma
rkv.
No
rwa
y),th
eCou
rtfo
und
that
thedi
spar
ity
betw
een
theleng
thsof
theco
asts
ofJa
nM
ayen
and
Gre
en-
land
(app
roxim
ately
1:9)
cons
titu
ted
a“s
pecial
circ
umstan
ce”
requ
irin
gm
odifi
cation
ofth
epr
ovisio
nalm
edian
line,
bym
ovin
git
clos
erto
the
coas
tof
Jan
May
en,t
oav
oid
ineq
uita
blere
sultsfo
rbo
thth
eco
ntin
enta
lsh
elfan
dth
efis
heries
zone
.The
Cou
rtstat
edth
at:
“Itsh
ould
,how
ever
,bem
adeclea
rth
atta
king
acco
untof
thedi
s-pa
rity
ofco
asta
lleng
thsdo
esno
tm
ean
adi
rect
and
mat
hem
atical
appl
icat
ion
ofth
ere
lation
ship
betw
een
the
leng
thof
the
coas
tal
fron
tof
easter
nG
reen
land
and
that
ofJa
nM
ayen
.”(J
ud
gm
ent,
I.C
.J.
Rep
ort
s1
99
3,p.
69,pa
ra.69
.)
The
nit
reca
lled
itsob
serv
atio
nfrom
the
Co
nti
nen
tal
Sh
elf
(L
iby
an
Ara
bJ
am
ah
iriy
a/M
alt
a)
case
:
“Ifsu
chaus
eof
prop
ortion
alitywer
erigh
t,it
isdi
fficu
ltin
deed
tose
ewha
tro
omwou
ldbe
left
for
any
othe
rco
nsid
erat
ion;fo
rit
wou
ldbe
aton
ceth
epr
incipl
eof
entitlem
entto
cont
inen
talsh
elf
116
MARIT
IME
DELIM
ITATIO
N(J
UD
GM
EN
T)
righ
tsan
dalso
them
etho
dof
puttin
gth
atpr
incipl
ein
toop
erat
ion.
Itswea
knes
sas
aba
sisof
argu
men
t,ho
wev
er,i
sth
atth
eus
eof
pro-
portio
nalit
yas
am
etho
din
itsow
nrigh
tis
wan
ting
ofsu
ppor
tin
the
prac
tice
ofSt
ates
,in
thepu
blic
expr
ession
ofth
eirview
sat
(in
par-
ticu
lar)
theThi
rdU
nited
Nat
ions
Con
fere
nceon
theLaw
ofth
eSe
a,or
inth
eju
risp
rude
nce.”
Ju
dg
men
t,I.
C.J
.R
epo
rts
19
85,
p.45
,pa
ra.58
.)
Inth
elatter
case
,th
eCou
rtwas
ofth
eview
that
thedi
ffer
ence
inth
eleng
thsof
there
leva
ntco
asts
ofM
alta
and
Lib
ya(b
eing
inra
tio
1:8)
“is
sog
rea
tas
toju
stify
the
adju
stm
entof
the
med
ian
line”
(ib
id.,
p.50
,pa
ra.68
;em
phas
isad
ded)
.The
Cou
rtad
ded
that
“the
degr
eeof
such
adju
stm
entdo
esno
tde
pend
upon
am
athe
mat
ical
oper
atio
nan
dre
mains
tobe
exam
ined
”(
ibid
.).
167.
The
Cou
rtfu
rthe
rno
testh
atin
the
Del
imit
ati
on
of
the
Ma
riti
me
Bo
un
da
ryin
the
Gu
lfo
fM
ain
eA
rea
(C
an
ad
a/U
nit
edS
tate
so
fA
mer
ica
)ca
se,th
eCha
mbe
rco
nsid
ered
that
“in
certain
circ
umstan
ces,
theap
pro-
priate
cons
eque
nces
may
bedr
awn
from
any
ineq
ua
liti
esin
theex
tent
ofth
eco
asts
oftw
oSt
ates
into
the
sam
ear
eaof
delim
itat
ion”
(Ju
dg
men
t,I.
C.J
.R
epo
rts
19
84,p.
313,
para
.15
7;em
phas
isad
ded)
.H
owev
er,it
mus
tbe
kept
inm
ind
that
theCha
mbe
rdi
dso
inth
eco
ntex
tof
disc
uss-
ing
wha
tco
uld
be“t
heeq
uit
ab
lecr
iter
iath
atm
aybe
take
nin
toco
nsid
-er
atio
nfo
ran
intern
atio
nal
mar
itim
ede
limitat
ion”
(ib
id.,
p.31
2,pa
ra.15
7;em
phas
isad
ded)
.It
then
furthe
relab
orat
edon
this
poin
tby
stat
ing “[...
]tha
tto
take
into
acco
untth
eex
tent
ofth
ere
spec
tive
coas
tsof
the
Par
ties
conc
erne
ddo
esno
tin
itse
lfco
nstitu
teeith
era
criter
ion
serv
-in
gas
adi
rect
basisfo
rade
limitat
ion,
oram
etho
dth
atca
nbe
used
toim
plem
entsu
chde
limitat
ion.
The
Cha
mbe
rre
cogn
izes
that
this
conc
eptis
putfo
rwar
dm
ainl
yas
am
eans
ofch
ecki
ngwhe
ther
apr
ovisio
nalde
limitat
ion
esta
blishe
din
itially
onth
eba
sis
ofot
her
criter
ia,an
dby
the
use
ofa
metho
dwhi
chha
sno
thin
gto
dowith
that
conc
ept,
can
orca
nnot
beco
nsid
ered
satisfac
tory
inre
lation
toce
rtain
geog
raph
ical
feat
ures
ofth
esp
ecifi
cca
se,an
dwhe
ther
itis
reas
onab
leor
othe
rwiseto
correc
tita
ccor
ding
ly.T
heCha
mbe
r’sview
son
this
subj
ectm
aybe
sum
med
upby
obse
rvin
gth
ata
mar
itim
ede
limitat
ion
can
certainl
yno
tbe
esta
blishe
dby
adi
rect
division
ofth
ear
eain
disp
ute
prop
ortion
alto
the
resp
ective
leng
ths
ofth
eco
asts
belo
ngin
gto
thepa
rtiesin
there
leva
ntar
ea,bu
tit
iseq
ually
certain
that
asu
bst
an
tia
ldi
spro
portio
nto
theleng
thsof
thos
eco
asts
that
resu
lted
from
ade
limitat
ion
effected
ona
differ
entba
siswou
ldco
nstitu
tea
circ
umstan
ceca
lling
for
anap
prop
riat
eco
rrec
tion
.”(I
bid
.,p.
323,
para
.18
5;em
phas
isad
ded.
)
168.
Inth
epr
esen
tca
se,ho
wev
erth
eCou
rtse
esno
such
particul
arly
mar
ked
disp
aritiesbe
twee
nth
ere
leva
ntco
asts
ofU
kraine
and
Rom
ania
117
MARIT
IME
DELIM
ITATIO
N(J
UD
GM
EN
T)
that
wou
ldre
quire
itto
adju
stth
epr
ovisio
naleq
uidi
stan
celin
eat
this
junc
ture
.Altho
ugh
ther
eis
doub
tles
sadi
ffer
ence
inth
eleng
thof
there
l-ev
antco
asts
ofth
ePar
ties
,th
eCou
rtre
calls
that
itpr
evio
usly
(see
para
-gr
aph
100
abov
e)ex
clud
edth
eco
astof
Kar
kini
ts’k
aG
ulf(m
easu
ring
som
e27
8km
)from
furthe
rco
nsid
erat
ion.
The
Cou
rtfu
rthe
rno
testh
atit
cann
otdi
sreg
ard
the
fact
that
ago
odpo
rtio
nof
the
Ukr
aini
anco
ast
whi
chit
cons
ider
sas
releva
ntpr
ojec
tsin
toth
esa
me
area
asot
herse
g-m
ents
ofth
eU
kraini
anco
ast,
thus
stre
ngth
enin
gbu
tnot
spat
ially
expa
nd-
ing
theU
kraini
anen
titlem
ent.
9.2
.T
he
En
clo
sed
Na
ture
of
the
Bla
ckS
eaa
nd
the
Del
imit
ati
on
sA
lrea
dy
Eff
ecte
din
the
Reg
ion
169.
Rom
ania
notesth
atth
een
clos
edna
ture
ofth
eBlack
Seais
also
are
leva
ntcirc
umstan
ceas
part
ofth
ewid
erre
quirem
entto
take
acco
untof
the
geog
raph
ical
cont
ext
ofth
ear
eato
bede
limited
.Acc
ordi
ngto
Rom
ania,i
nco
nsid
erin
gth
eeq
uita
blena
ture
ofan
equi
distan
celin
e,th
e“g
ener
alm
aritim
ege
ogra
phy”
ofth
eBlack
Sea
mus
tbe
asse
ssed
.In
Rom
ania’s
view
,th
isge
ogra
phical
factor
isto
beco
nsid
ered
toge
ther
with
any
pre-ex
isting
delim
itat
ion
agre
emen
tsso
that
any
new
delim
ita-
tion
shou
ldno
tdr
amat
ically
depa
rtfrom
them
etho
dpr
evio
usly
used
inth
esa
me
sea
betw
een
othe
rripa
rian
Stat
esin
orde
rno
tto
prod
uce
anin
equi
tabl
ere
sult.
170.
Rom
ania
cont
ends
that
allt
hede
limitat
ion
agre
emen
tsco
nclu
ded
inth
eBlack
Sea
used
equi
distan
ceas
them
etho
dfo
rth
ede
limitat
ion
ofth
eco
ntin
enta
lsh
elfan
dth
eex
clus
ive
econ
omic
zone
s.Rom
ania
adds
that
thelin
esof
delim
itat
ion
esta
blishe
dby
two
ofth
eseag
reem
ents
end
with
prov
isio
nally
defin
edse
gmen
ts,th
ede
finitive
cour
seof
whi
chis
tode
pend
onsu
bseq
uent
disc
ussion
s,an
dth
atth
ere
ason
forth
iswas
that
thePar
ties
wishe
dto
avoi
dpr
ejud
icin
gth
ein
tere
stsof
third
partiesan
dth
atth
eyha
dRom
ania
inm
ind.
171.
Rom
ania
conc
lude
sth
atth
eBlack
Sea’sna
ture
asan
enclos
edse
aan
ditsra
ther
smalls
ize,
toge
ther
with
theag
reed
solu
tion
ses
tabl
ishe
din
the
delim
itat
ion
agre
emen
tsin
forc
e,co
nstitu
tea
releva
ntcirc
umstan
cewhi
chm
ustbe
take
nin
toac
coun
tin
thede
limitat
ion
proc
essfo
rRom
a-ni
a’san
dU
kraine
’sm
aritim
ear
eas.
*
172.
InU
kraine
’sview
,th
ere
is“n
osu
ppor
tin
law
orin
the
factua
lco
ntex
t”fo
rRom
ania’s
argu
men
tsre
gard
ing
thech
arac
teriza
tion
ofth
eBlack
Seaas
anen
clos
edse
aan
dth
eim
portan
ceof
mar
itim
ede
limitat
ion
agre
emen
tspr
evio
usly
conc
lude
dbe
twee
nce
rtain
Stat
esbo
rder
ing
the
Black
Sea.
Acc
ordi
ngto
Ukr
aine
,th
ere
isno
spec
ialré
gim
ego
vern
ing
delim
itat
ions
taki
ngpl
ace
inan
enclos
edse
asim
ply
beca
use
ofth
is
118
MARIT
IME
DELIM
ITATIO
N(J
UD
GM
EN
T)
natu
re.U
kraine
ther
efor
eco
nsid
ers
that
the
enclos
edch
arac
ter
ofth
eBlack
Sea
“isno
tby
itse
lfa
circ
umstan
cewhi
chou
ghtto
bere
gard
edas
releva
ntfo
rde
limitat
ion
purp
oses
”an
dha
sno
bear
ingon
them
etho
dof
delim
itat
ion
tobe
appl
ied
inth
epr
esen
tpr
ocee
ding
s.17
3.U
kraine
furthe
rno
testh
atin
gene
ralterm
s,bi
latera
lag
reem
ents
cann
otaf
fect
the
righ
tsof
third
partiesan
d,as
such
,th
eex
isting
mar
i-tim
ede
limitat
ionag
reem
ents
inth
eBlack
Seaca
nnot
influ
ence
thepr
esen
tdi
sput
e.
Ukr
aine
stat
esth
aton
lyin
alim
ited
sens
eca
nth
epr
esen
ceof
third
Stat
esin
thevicini
tyof
thear
eato
bede
limited
beco
nsid
ered
are
leva
ntcirc
umstan
ce.H
owev
er,th
isha
sno
thin
gto
dowith
the
choi
ceof
the
actu
alm
etho
dof
delim
itat
ion
orth
ech
arac
terof
ase
a(w
heth
eror
notit
isen
clos
ed).
Acc
ordi
ngto
Ukr
aine
,th
epr
esen
ceof
third
Stat
esm
aybe
releva
nton
lyto
theex
tent
that
theCou
rtm
ayha
veto
take
prec
aution
sin
iden
tify
ing
apr
ecise
endp
oint
ofth
ede
limitat
ion
line
soas
toav
oid
potent
ialp
reju
dice
toSt
ates
situ
ated
onth
epe
riph
eryof
thede
limitat
ion
area
.
**
174.
The
Cou
rtre
calls
that
itha
sin
tim
ated
earlier,
whe
nit
briefly
desc
ribe
dth
ede
limitat
ion
metho
dolo
gy,th
atit
wou
ldes
tabl
ish
apr
ovi-
sion
aleq
uidi
stan
celin
e(see
para
grap
h11
6ab
ove).Thi
sch
oice
was
not
dictat
edby
thefa
ctth
atin
allt
hede
limitat
ion
agre
emen
tsco
ncer
ning
the
Black
Sea
this
metho
dwas
used
.17
5.Two
delim
itat
ion
agre
emen
tsco
ncer
ning
the
Black
Sea
wer
ebr
ough
tto
the
attent
ion
ofth
eCou
rt.The
first
agre
emen
t,th
eAgr
ee-
men
tco
ncer
ning
the
Delim
itat
ion
ofth
eCon
tine
ntal
Shelfin
the
Black
Sea,
was
conc
lude
dbe
twee
nTur
key
and
the
USS
Ron
23Ju
ne19
78.
Som
eeigh
tye
arslater,
they
agre
ed,t
hrou
ghan
Exc
hang
eof
Not
esda
ted
23D
ecem
ber
1986
and
6Feb
ruar
y19
87,
that
the
cont
inen
tal
shelf
boun
dary
agre
edin
their
1978
Agr
eem
ent
wou
ldalso
cons
titu
teth
ebo
unda
rybe
twee
nth
eirex
clus
iveec
onom
iczo
nes.
The
wes
tern
mos
tse
g-m
entof
thelin
e,be
twee
ntw
opo
ints
with
co-o
rdin
ates
43°2
0′43
″N
and
32°0
0′00
″E
and
co-o
rdin
ates
43°2
6′59
″N
and
31°2
0′48
″E,re
spec
-tive
ly,r
emaine
dun
defin
edan
dto
bese
ttled
subs
eque
ntly
ataco
nven
ient
tim
e.After
thedi
ssol
utio
nof
theU
SSR
atth
een
dof
1991
,the
1978
Agr
ee-
men
tan
dth
eAgr
eem
ent
reac
hed
thro
ugh
the
Exc
hang
eof
Not
esre
maine
din
forc
eno
ton
lyfo
rth
eRus
sian
Fed
erat
ion,
asth
eSt
ateco
n-tinu
ing
thein
tern
atio
nallega
lpe
rson
ality
ofth
efo
rmer
USS
R,bu
talso
thesu
cces
sorSt
ates
ofth
eU
SSR
bord
erin
gth
eBlack
Sea,
Ukr
aine
bein
gon
eof
them
.17
6.The
seco
ndag
reem
entis
theAgr
eem
entbe
twee
nTur
keyan
dBul
-ga
ria
onth
ede
term
inat
ion
ofth
ebo
unda
ryin
the
mou
thar
eaof
the
Rez
ovsk
a/M
utlu
dere
River
and
delim
itat
ion
ofth
em
aritim
ear
eas
betw
een
thetw
oSt
ates
inth
eBlack
Sea,
sign
edon
4D
ecem
ber19
97.T
he119
MARIT
IME
DELIM
ITATIO
N(J
UD
GM
EN
T)
draw
ingof
thede
limitat
ion
lineof
theco
ntin
enta
lshe
lfan
dth
eex
clus
ive
econ
omic
zone
furthe
rto
theno
rth-
east
dire
ctio
n,be
twee
nge
ogra
phical
poin
t43
°19′
54″N
and
31°0
6′33
″E
and
geog
raph
ical
poin
t43
°26′
49″N
and
31°2
0′43
″E,w
asleft
open
forsu
bseq
uent
nego
tiat
ions
ata
suitab
letim
e. 177.
The
Cou
rtwill
bear
inm
ind
the
agre
edm
aritim
ede
limitat
ions
betw
een
Tur
key
and
Bul
garia,
aswellas
betw
een
Tur
key
and
Ukr
aine
,whe
nco
nsid
erin
gth
een
dpoi
ntof
the
sing
lem
aritim
ebo
unda
ryit
isas
ked
todr
awin
thepr
esen
tca
se(see
Sectio
n10
belo
w).
178.
The
Cou
rtne
verthe
less
cons
ider
sth
at,in
thelig
htof
theab
ove-
men
tion
edde
limitat
ion
agre
emen
tsan
dth
een
clos
edna
ture
ofth
eBlack
Sea,
noad
justm
ent
toth
eeq
uidi
stan
celin
eas
prov
isio
nally
draw
nis
calle
dfo
r.
9.3
.T
he
Pre
sen
ceo
fS
erp
ents
’Is
lan
din
the
Are
ao
fD
elim
ita
tio
n
179.
The
Par
ties
disa
gree
asto
thepr
oper
char
acteriza
tion
ofSe
rpen
ts’
Island
and
thero
leth
ism
aritim
efeat
uresh
ould
play
inth
ede
limitat
ion
ofth
eco
ntin
enta
lsh
elfan
dth
ePar
ties
’ex
clus
iveec
onom
iczo
nesin
the
Black
Sea.
180.
Rom
ania
maint
ains
that
Serp
ents’Island
isen
titled
tono
mor
eth
ana
12-n
autica
l-m
ileterritor
ialse
a,an
dth
atit
cann
otbe
used
asa
base
poin
tin
draw
ingade
limitat
ion
linebe
yond
the12
-mile
limit.R
oma-
nia
claim
sth
atSe
rpen
ts’Island
isa
rock
inca
pabl
eof
sustaini
nghu
man
habi
tation
orec
onom
iclif
eof
its
own,
and
ther
efor
eha
sno
exclus
ive
econ
omic
zone
orco
ntin
enta
lsh
elf,
aspr
ovid
edfo
rin
Article
121,
para
-gr
aph
3,of
the19
82U
NCLOS.
Acc
ordi
ngto
Rom
ania,S
erpe
nts’
Island
qualifi
esas
a“r
ock”
beca
use:
itis
aro
cky
form
atio
nin
thege
omor
pho-
logicse
nse;
itis
devo
idof
natu
ralwat
erso
urce
san
dvirtua
llyde
void
ofso
il,ve
geta
tion
and
faun
a.Rom
ania
claim
sth
athu
man
surv
ival
onth
eisland
isde
pend
enton
supp
lies,
espe
cially
ofwat
er,from
else
whe
rean
dth
atth
ena
tura
lcon
dition
sth
eredo
notsu
ppor
tth
ede
velo
pmen
tof
eco-
nom
icac
tivities
.It
adds
that
“[t]he
pres
ence
ofso
me
indi
vidu
als,
...
beca
useth
eyha
veto
perfor
man
offic
iald
utysu
chas
maint
aini
ngalig
ht-
hous
e,do
esno
tam
ount
tosu
staine
d‘h
uman
habi
tation
’”.
181.
Rom
ania
furthe
rar
gues
that
Serp
ents’I
slan
ddo
esno
tfo
rmpa
rtof
theco
asta
lcon
figur
atio
nof
thePar
ties
and
that
itsco
astca
nnot
ther
e-fo
rebe
includ
edam
ong
Ukr
aine
’sre
leva
ntco
asts
for
purp
oses
ofth
ede
limitat
ion.
182.
Rom
ania
neve
rthe
less
adm
itsth
atin
thepr
esen
tca
seth
epr
esen
ceof
Serp
ents’
Island
“with
its
alre
ady
agre
edbe
ltof
12-n
autica
l-m
ileterritor
ialse
a”m
ight
bea
releva
ntcirc
umstan
ce.It
asse
rts
that
unde
rin
tern
atio
nalj
urispr
uden
cean
dSt
atepr
actice
,sm
alli
slan
ds,i
rres
pectiveof
theirlega
lch
arac
teriza
tion
,ha
vefreq
uent
lybe
engive
nve
ryre
duce
dor120
MARIT
IME
DELIM
ITATIO
N(J
UD
GM
EN
T)
noeffect
inth
ede
limitat
ion
ofth
eco
ntin
enta
lsh
elf,
exclus
iveec
onom
iczo
neor
othe
rm
aritim
ezo
nes
due
toth
ein
equi
tabl
eeffect
they
wou
ldpr
oduc
e.Thu
s,co
nten
dsRom
ania,in
the
pres
entca
seth
epr
ovisio
nal
equi
distan
celin
esh
ould
bedr
awn
betw
een
there
leva
ntm
ainl
and
coas
tsof
thePar
ties
,with
min
orm
aritim
efo
rmat
ions
only
bein
gco
nsid
ered
ata
laterstag
eas
possib
lere
leva
ntcirc
umstan
ces.
Rom
ania
stat
esth
atSe
r-pe
nts’
Island
,given
itslo
cation
,cou
ldbe
cons
ider
edas
are
leva
ntcirc
um-
stan
ceon
lyin
the
sector
ofth
ede
limitat
ion
area
whe
reth
eco
asts
are
adjace
nt(in
othe
rwor
ds,t
hepr
ovisio
nale
quid
ista
ncelin
ewou
ldha
veto
besh
ifted
soas
tota
kein
toco
nsid
erat
ion
them
aritim
ebo
unda
ryalon
gth
e12
-nau
tica
l-m
ilear
car
ound
Serp
ents’I
slan
d,whi
ch“c
anno
tge
nera
tem
aritim
ezo
nesbe
yond
12na
utical
mile
s”).
Owin
gto
itsre
mot
enes
sfrom
the
Ukr
aini
anco
ast
ofCrim
ea,Se
rpen
ts’Island
cann
ot,ac
cord
ing
toRom
ania,pl
ayan
yro
lein
thede
limitat
ion
inth
ear
eawhe
reth
eco
asts
areop
posite.I
nsh
ort,
Rom
ania
cons
ider
sth
at,a
ltho
ugh
Serp
ents’I
slan
dm
ayqu
alifyas
a“s
pecial
circ
umstan
ce”,
itsh
ould
notbe
give
nan
yeffect
beyo
nd12
naut
ical
mile
s.
*
183.
Ukr
aine
argu
esth
atSe
rpen
ts’Island
hasa
base
linewhi
chge
ner-
ates
base
poin
tsfo
rth
eco
nstruc
tion
ofth
epr
ovisio
nale
quid
ista
ncelin
e.Thu
s,in
Ukr
aine
’sview
,th
eco
ast
ofth
eisland
cons
titu
tes
part
ofU
kraine
’sre
leva
ntco
asts
forpu
rpos
esof
thede
limitat
ion
and
cann
otbe
redu
ced
toju
sta
releva
ntcirc
umstan
ceto
beco
nsid
ered
only
atth
ese
c-on
dstag
eof
the
delim
itat
ion
proc
essaf
terth
epr
ovisio
naleq
uidi
stan
celin
eha
sbe
enes
tabl
ishe
d.18
4.Acc
ordi
ngto
Ukr
aine
,Ser
pent
s’Island
isin
disp
utab
lyan
“islan
d”un
der
Article
121,
para
grap
h2,
ofU
NCLOS,
rath
erth
ana
“roc
k”.
Ukr
aine
cont
ends
that
theev
iden
cesh
owsth
atSe
rpen
ts’I
slan
dca
nre
ad-
ilysu
stain
hum
anha
bita
tion
and
that
itis
welle
stab
lishe
dth
atit
can
sus-
tain
anec
onom
iclif
eof
itsow
n.In
particul
ar,th
eisland
hasve
geta
tion
and
asu
fficien
tsu
pply
offres
hwat
er.U
kraine
furthe
ras
sertsth
atSe
r-pe
nts’
Island
“isan
island
with
appr
opriat
ebu
ildin
gsan
dac
com
mod
a-tion
foran
active
popu
lation
”.U
kraine
also
argu
esth
atpa
ragr
aph
3of
Article
121
isno
tre
leva
ntto
this
delim
itat
ion
beca
useth
atpa
ragr
aph
isno
tco
ncer
ned
with
ques
tion
sof
delim
itat
ion
butis,ra
ther
,an
entitle-
men
tpr
ovisio
nth
atha
sno
prac
tica
lap
plicat
ion
with
resp
ectto
am
ari-
tim
ear
eath
atis,in
any
even
t,withi
nth
e20
0-m
ilelim
itof
theex
clus
ive
econ
omic
zone
and
cont
inen
talsh
elfof
am
ainl
and
coas
t.
**
121
MARIT
IME
DELIM
ITATIO
N(J
UD
GM
EN
T)
185.
Inde
term
inin
gth
em
aritim
ebo
unda
rylin
e,in
defa
ult
ofan
yde
limitat
ion
agre
emen
twithi
nth
em
eani
ngof
UN
CLOS
Articles74
and
83,th
eCou
rtm
ay,sh
ould
releva
ntcirc
umstan
cesso
sugg
est,
adju
stth
epr
ovisio
naleq
uidi
stan
celin
eto
ensu
rean
equi
tabl
ere
sult.In
this
phas
e,th
eCou
rtm
aybe
calle
dup
onto
decide
whe
ther
this
line
shou
ldbe
adju
sted
beca
use
ofth
epr
esen
ceof
smallisland
sin
itsvicini
ty.Asth
eju
risp
rude
nce
has
indi
cated,
the
Cou
rtm
ayon
occa
sion
decide
notto
take
acco
untof
very
smallisland
sor
decide
notto
give
them
theirfu
llpo
tent
iale
ntitlem
entto
mar
itim
ezo
nes,
shou
ldsu
chan
appr
oach
have
adi
spro
portio
nate
effect
onth
ede
limitat
ion
lineun
derco
nsid
erat
ion
(see
Co
nti
nen
tal
Sh
elf
(L
iby
an
Ara
bJ
am
ah
iriy
a/M
alt
a)
,J
ud
gm
ent,
I.C
.J.
Rep
ort
s1
98
5,p.
48,pa
ra.64
;M
ari
tim
eD
elim
ita
tio
na
nd
Ter
rito
ria
lQ
ues
tio
ns
bet
wee
nQ
ata
ra
nd
Ba
hra
in(
Qa
tarv.
Ba
hra
in)
,M
erit
s,J
ud
g-
men
t,I.
C.J
.R
epo
rts
20
01,p.
104,
para
.21
9;
Ter
rito
ria
la
nd
Ma
riti
me
Dis
pu
teb
etw
een
Nic
ara
gu
aa
nd
Ho
nd
ura
sin
the
Ca
rib
bea
nS
ea(
Nic
a-
rag
ua
v.H
on
du
ras)
,J
ud
gm
ent,
I.C
.J.
Rep
ort
s2
00
7(
II),p
p.75
1et
seq
.,pa
ras.
302
etse
q.).
186.
The
Cou
rtre
calls
that
itha
salre
ady
determ
ined
that
Serp
ents’
Island
cann
otse
rveas
aba
sepo
intfo
rth
eco
nstruc
tion
ofth
epr
ovisio
nal
equi
distan
celin
ebe
twee
nth
eco
asts
ofth
ePar
ties
,th
atit
hasdr
awn
inth
efir
ststag
eof
this
delim
itat
ion
proc
ess,
sinc
eit
does
notfo
rmpa
rtof
the
gene
ralco
nfigu
ration
ofth
eco
ast(see
para
grap
h14
9ab
ove).The
Cou
rtm
ustn
ow,a
tthe
seco
ndstag
eof
thede
limitat
ion,
asce
rtainwhe
ther
thepr
esen
ceof
Serp
ents’I
slan
din
them
aritim
ede
limitat
ion
area
cons
ti-
tutesare
leva
ntcirc
umstan
ceca
lling
foran
adju
stm
entof
thepr
ovisio
nal
equi
distan
celin
e.18
7.W
ith
resp
ectto
the
geog
raph
yof
the
north-
wes
tern
part
ofth
eBlack
Sea,
the
Cou
rtha
sta
ken
due
rega
rdof
the
fact
that
Ukr
aine
’sco
astlie
son
thewes
t,no
rth
and
east
ofth
isar
ea.The
Cou
rtno
testh
atallof
the
area
ssu
bjec
tto
delim
itat
ion
inth
isca
sear
elo
cated
inth
eex
clus
ive
econ
omic
zone
and
the
cont
inen
tal
shelf
gene
rated
byth
em
ainl
and
coas
tsof
the
Par
ties
and
are
mor
eove
rwithi
n20
0na
utical
mile
sof
Ukr
aine
’sm
ainl
and
coas
t.The
Cou
rtob
serv
esth
atSe
rpen
ts’
Island
issitu
ated
appr
oxim
ately20
naut
ical
mile
sto
theea
stof
Ukr
aine
’sm
ainl
and
coas
tin
the
area
ofth
eD
anub
ede
lta
(see
para
grap
h16
abov
e).G
iven
this
geog
raph
ical
confi
gura
tion
and
inth
eco
ntex
tof
the
delim
itat
ion
with
Rom
ania,an
yco
ntin
enta
lsh
elf
and
exclus
ive
eco-
nom
iczo
neen
titlem
ents
possib
lyge
nera
ted
bySe
rpen
ts’Island
coul
dno
tpr
ojec
tfu
rthe
rth
anth
een
titlem
ents
gene
rated
byU
kraine
’sm
ain-
land
coas
tbe
caus
eof
the
sout
hern
limit
ofth
ede
limitat
ion
area
asid
entifie
dby
theCou
rt(see
para
grap
h11
4an
dsk
etch
-map
No.
5,p.
102)
.Fur
ther
,any
possib
leen
titlem
ents
gene
rated
bySe
rpen
ts’I
slan
din
anea
st-
war
ddi
rectio
nar
efu
llysu
bsum
edby
the
entitlem
ents
gene
rated
byth
ewes
tern
and
easter
nm
ainl
and
coas
tsof
Ukr
aine
itse
lf.The
Cou
rtalso
notesth
atU
kraine
itse
lf,ev
enth
ough
itco
nsid
ered
Serp
ents’Island
tofa
llun
derArticle
121,
para
grap
h2,
ofU
NCLOS,
did
notex
tend
there
le-
vant
area
beyo
ndth
elim
itge
nera
ted
byitsm
ainl
and
coas
t,as
aco
nse-
122
MARIT
IME
DELIM
ITATIO
N(J
UD
GM
EN
T)
quen
ceof
thepr
esen
ceof
Serp
ents’I
slan
din
thear
eaof
delim
itat
ion
(see
sketch
-map
No.
3,p.
92).
Inth
elig
htof
thes
efa
ctor
s,th
eCou
rtco
nclu
desth
atth
epr
esen
ceof
Serp
ents’Island
does
notca
llfo
ran
adju
stm
entof
thepr
ovisio
naleq
ui-
distan
celin
e.In
view
ofth
eab
ove,
theCou
rtdo
esno
tne
edto
cons
ider
whe
ther
Ser-
pent
s’Island
falls
unde
rpa
ragr
aphs
2or
3of
Article
121
ofU
NCLOS
north
eirre
leva
nceto
this
case
.18
8.The
Cou
rtfu
rthe
rre
calls
that
a12
-nau
tica
l-m
ileterritor
ialse
awas
attrib
uted
toSe
rpen
ts’Island
pursua
ntto
agre
emen
tsbe
twee
nth
ePar
ties
.It
conc
lude
sth
at,in
the
cont
extof
the
pres
entca
se,Se
rpen
ts’
Island
shou
ldha
veno
effect
onth
ede
limitat
ion
inth
isca
se,ot
herth
anth
atstem
min
gfrom
the
role
ofth
e12
-nau
tica
l-m
ilear
cof
itsterritor
ial
sea.
9.4
.T
he
Co
nd
uct
of
the
Pa
rtie
s(
Oil
an
dG
as
Co
nce
ssio
ns,
Fis
hin
gA
ctiv
itie
sa
nd
Na
val
Pa
tro
ls)
189.
Ukr
aine
sugg
ests
that
Stat
eac
tivities
inth
ere
leva
ntar
ea“c
onsti-
tute
are
leva
ntcirc
umstan
cewhi
chop
erat
esin
favo
urof
theco
ntin
enta
lsh
elf/EEZ
claim
linepr
opos
edby
Ukr
aine
”.U
kraine
expl
ains
that
itdo
esno
tpo
intto
this
cond
uctof
thePar
ties
inor
derto
show
theex
istenc
eof
alin
ear
isin
gfrom
ata
citag
reem
entor
am
od
us
vive
nd
i.In
stea
d,U
kraine
seek
sto
asse
ssth
eclaim
sof
thePar
ties
inre
lation
toth
eirac
tual
cond
uct.
Acc
ordi
ngto
Ukr
aine
,it
issign
ifica
ntth
atRom
ania’s
activities
,or
lack
ofth
em,a
re“f
unda
men
tally
inco
nsistent
”with
Rom
ania’s
argu
men
tth
atth
erewas
apr
e-ex
isting
mar
itim
ede
limitat
ionin
thedi
sput
edar
eaex
tend
-in
gou
tto
“Poi
ntX”.
Fur
ther
mor
e,U
kraine
cont
ends
that
the
lack
ofan
yco
mpa
rabl
eop
erat
ions
byRom
ania
inth
edi
sput
edar
eais
inco
m-
patibl
ewith
thepo
sition
take
nby
Rom
ania
inth
epr
ocee
ding
sbe
fore
the
Cou
rt.
190.
Ukr
aine
argu
esth
atin
1993
,20
01an
d20
03it
licen
sed
activities
relating
toth
eex
plor
atio
nof
oilan
dga
sde
posits
withi
nth
eco
ntin
enta
lsh
elf/ex
clus
ive
econ
omic
zone
area
claim
edby
Ukr
aine
inth
ecu
rren
tca
se.It
asse
rts
that
the
existenc
eof
thes
elic
ence
sde
mon
stra
tes
that
Ukr
aine
,bo
thbe
fore
and
afterth
e19
97Add
itio
nalAgr
eem
ent,
auth
or-
ized
activities
relating
toth
eex
plor
atio
nof
oilan
dga
sde
posits
inar
eas
ofth
eco
ntin
enta
lsh
elfto
whi
chRom
ania
lays
claim
inth
ese
proc
eed-
ings
.It
adds
that
prio
rto
2001
,Rom
ania
neve
rpr
otes
ted
Ukr
aine
’soi
lan
dga
sac
tivities
inar
easno
wclaim
edby
Rom
ania.
Ukr
aine
conc
lude
son
this
poin
tth
atitsoi
l-re
lated
activities
are
con-
sisten
twithitsde
limitat
ionlin
ean
dsh
ould
beta
kenin
toac
coun
ttog
ethe
rwith
the
othe
rre
leva
ntcirc
umstan
ces,
inpa
rticul
arth
eph
ysical
geo-
grap
hy,in
orde
rto
achi
evean
equi
tabl
eso
lution
.
123
MARIT
IME
DELIM
ITATIO
N(J
UD
GM
EN
T)
191.
Ukr
aine
furthe
rar
gues
that
theex
clus
iveec
onom
iczo
nean
dco
n-tine
ntal
shelfbo
unda
ryit
claim
sfu
rthe
rmor
eco
rres
pond
sge
nera
llyto
the
limit
ofth
ePar
ties
exclus
ive
fishi
ngzo
nes
“as
resp
ected
bybo
thRom
ania
and
Ukr
aine
inth
eirad
min
istrat
ion
offis
hing
inth
eno
rth-
wes
tpa
rtof
theBlack
Sea”
.U
kraine
emph
asizes
that
itwas
Ukr
aine
and
not
Rom
ania
that
hasbe
enac
tive
inpo
licin
gth
atpa
rtof
thear
ea.U
kraine
cont
ends
that
Rom
ania
hasne
ithe
rde
mon
stra
ted
any
intere
stin
patrol
-lin
gth
ear
eano
rha
sit
objected
toth
efa
ctth
atth
eU
kraini
anco
astg
uard
assu
med
theso
lere
spon
sibi
lity
ofin
terc
epting
illeg
alfis
hing
vesselsan
d,whe
npo
ssib
le,es
cortin
gth
emou
tof
Ukr
aine
’sex
clus
iveec
onom
iczo
nean
dta
king
any
othe
rap
prop
riat
em
easu
res.
192.
With
rega
rdto
theno
tion
ofa
critical
date
introd
uced
byRom
a-ni
a,U
kraine
stat
esth
at“e
ven
assu
min
gth
atth
erewas
acr
itical
date
atall,
and
that
the
critical
date
wou
ldha
vea
role
topl
ayin
mar
itim
ede
limitat
ion,
itis
the
date
ofRom
ania’s
App
licat
ion:
16Se
ptem
ber
2004
”.
*
193.
Rom
ania
does
notco
nsid
erth
atSt
ate
activities
inth
ere
leva
ntar
ea,na
mely
licen
cesfo
rth
eex
plor
atio
nan
dex
ploi
tation
ofoi
lan
dga
san
dfis
hing
prac
tice
s,co
nstitu
tere
leva
ntcirc
umstan
ces.
Asa
mat
terof
lega
lpr
incipl
e,ef
fect
ivit
ésor
“Sta
teac
tivities
”ca
nnot
cons
titu
tean
ele-
men
tto
beta
ken
into
acco
untfo
rth
epu
rpos
esof
mar
itim
ede
limitat
ion.
Rom
ania
notesth
atm
aritim
eef
fect
ivit
ésca
non
lybe
take
nin
toac
coun
tif
they
“refl
ecta
tacitag
reem
ent”
whi
chm
ight
cons
titu
tea
releva
ntcir-
cum
stan
cefo
rde
limitat
ion.
Inor
derto
com
ewithi
nth
is“e
xcep
tion
”to
thege
nera
lrul
e,it
notesth
aton
lySt
ateac
tivities
prio
rto
thecr
itical
date
may
bere
leva
ntan
dth
atth
eym
ustbe
suffi
cien
tto
prov
eth
at“a
tacit
agre
emen
tor
mo
du
svi
ven
diex
ists”.
Acc
ordi
ngto
Rom
ania,th
eef
fect
iv-
ités
pres
ented
byU
kraine
dono
tre
veal
theex
istenc
eof
a“d
efa
cto
line”
orof
a“p
attern
ofco
nduc
t”pr
ovin
gon
eway
oran
othe
ran
agre
emen
tbe
twee
nth
ePar
ties
,or
acqu
iesc
ence
byRom
ania
relating
inan
yway
tom
aritim
ede
limitat
ion.
The
seac
tivities
cann
otth
erefor
eco
nstitu
tean
ele-
men
t“u
nder
min
ing
Rom
ania’s
argu
men
tre
gard
ing
the
1949
Pro
cès-
Ver
baux
”.Rom
ania
conc
lude
stha
titise
vide
ntfrom
allthe
elem
ents
rega
rd-
ing
the“S
tate
activities
”in
thedi
sput
edar
eath
atU
kraine
has“f
ailed
tode
mon
stra
teth
atth
eseSt
ateac
tivities
com
ply,
infa
ctor
inlaw,w
ith
the
nece
ssar
ycr
iter
iath
atm
ight
tran
sfor
mth
emin
toare
leva
ntcirc
umstan
ceab
leto
have
anim
pact
on[the
]de
limitat
ion”
.
194.
Rom
ania
furthe
rre
calls
that
unde
rth
e19
97Add
itio
nalAgr
ee-
men
tth
etw
oPar
ties
clea
rly
reco
gnized
inwriting
theex
istenc
eof
adi
s-pu
tere
gard
ing
the
mar
itim
ede
limitat
ion,
and
set
the
fram
ewor
kfo
rfu
ture
nego
tiat
ions
toco
nclu
dea
delim
itat
ion
agre
emen
t.Rom
ania
adds124
MARIT
IME
DELIM
ITATIO
N(J
UD
GM
EN
T)
that
the
Agr
eem
ent’s
prov
isio
nsre
gard
ing
the
existenc
eof
the
disp
ute
wer
ea
mer
eco
nfirm
atio
nof
afa
ctua
lsitu
atio
nth
atha
dalre
ady
existed
fora
long
tim
e.Thu
san
yoi
l-re
lated
prac
tice
occu
rrin
gaf
terth
eco
nclu
-sion
ofth
e19
97Add
itio
nalAgr
eem
entis,in
itsview
,irre
leva
ntin
the
pres
entpr
ocee
ding
sas
thedi
sput
eha
dalre
ady
crys
talli
zed
byth
atda
te.
195.
Rom
ania
conc
lude
sth
atU
kraine
’soi
lcon
cessio
nspr
actice
offers
nosu
ppor
tto
thelatter
’sclaim
edde
limitat
ion
forth
efo
llowin
gre
ason
s.First,th
ear
eaco
vere
dby
the
Ukr
aini
anco
nces
sion
s“d
oes
not
even
roug
hly
corres
pond
toitsclaim
inth
epr
esen
tpr
ocee
ding
s”.S
econ
d,tw
oof
the
thre
elic
ence
swer
eissu
edin
2001
and
2003
,i.e
.,af
terth
ecr
itical
date
of19
97.M
oreo
ver,
Rom
ania
cons
istent
lyob
jected
toU
kraini
anhy
droc
arbo
nac
tivity
.
196.
With
rega
rdto
fishi
ngac
tivities
,Rom
ania
cont
ests
that
thepr
ac-
tice
ofth
ePar
ties
hasan
ybe
arin
gon
the
mar
itim
ede
limitat
ion
inth
epr
esen
tca
sesinc
ene
ithe
rPar
tyec
onom
ically
depe
ndson
fishe
ries
activi-
ties
inan
area
inwhi
chpe
lagic
fish
stoc
ksar
elim
ited
;th
epr
actice
invo
ked
byU
kraine
isre
cent
and
only
cove
rsa
smallpa
rtof
thear
eain
disp
ute;
and
itha
salway
sbe
ench
alleng
edby
Rom
ania
and
hasne
ver
been
reco
gnized
byth
ird
Stat
es.W
ith
rega
rdto
thena
valp
atro
ls,R
oma-
nia
subm
its,
even
ifth
eyco
uld
beco
nsid
ered
are
leva
ntcirc
umstan
ce,
qu
od
no
n,allth
ena
valin
cide
ntsre
ported
byU
kraine
aresu
bseq
uent
toth
ecr
itical
date
and
assu
char
ein
any
even
tirre
leva
nt.
**
197.
The
Cou
rtre
calls
that
itha
dea
rlier
conc
lude
dth
atth
ere
isno
agre
emen
tin
forc
ebe
twee
nth
ePar
ties
delim
itin
gth
eco
ntin
enta
lsh
elf
and
theex
clus
iveec
onom
iczo
nesof
thePar
ties
(see
para
grap
h76
abov
e).
Itfu
rthe
rno
testh
atU
kraine
isno
tre
lyin
gon
Stat
eac
tivities
inor
der
topr
ove
ata
citag
reem
entor
mo
du
svi
ven
dibe
twee
nth
ePar
ties
onth
elin
ewhi
chwou
ldse
para
teth
eirre
spec
tive
exclus
iveec
onom
iczo
nesan
dco
ntin
enta
lsh
elve
s.It
rath
erre
fers
toSt
ate
activities
inor
derto
unde
r-m
ineth
elin
eclaim
edby
Rom
ania.
198.
The
Cou
rtdo
esno
tse
e,in
thecirc
umstan
cesof
thepr
esen
tca
se,
anypa
rticul
arro
lefo
rth
eSt
ateac
tivities
invo
ked
abov
ein
this
mar
itim
ede
limitat
ion.
Asth
eArb
itra
lTribu
nali
nth
eca
sebe
twee
nBar
bado
san
dTrini
dad
and
Tob
ago
obse
rved
,
“[r]es
ourc
e-re
lated
criter
iaha
vebe
entrea
ted
mor
eca
utio
usly
byth
ede
cision
sof
intern
atio
nalco
urts
and
trib
unals,
whi
chha
veno
tge
n-er
ally
appl
ied
this
factor
asa
releva
ntcirc
umstan
ce”
(Aw
ard
of
11
Ap
ril
20
06
,R
IAA,Vol
.XXVII,p.
214,
para
.24
1).
125
MARIT
IME
DELIM
ITATIO
N(J
UD
GM
EN
T)
With
resp
ectto
fishe
ries
,th
eCou
rtad
dsth
atno
evid
ence
hasbe
ensu
b-m
itted
toit
byU
kraine
that
anyde
limitat
ion
lineot
herth
anth
atclaim
edby
itwou
ldbe
“lik
ely
toen
tail
cata
stro
phic
repe
rcus
sion
sfo
rth
eliv
eli-
hood
and
econ
omic
well-be
ing
ofth
epo
pulation
”(D
elim
ita
tio
no
fth
eM
ari
tim
eB
ou
nd
ary
inth
eG
ulf
of
Ma
ine
Are
a(
Ca
na
da
/Un
ited
Sta
tes
of
Am
eric
a)
,J
ud
gm
ent,
I.C
.J.
Rep
ort
s1
98
4,p.
342,
para
.23
7).
Sinc
eth
eCou
rtdo
esno
tco
nsid
erth
atth
eab
ove-m
ention
edSt
ate
activities
cons
titu
tea
releva
ntcirc
umstan
cein
thepr
esen
tca
se,th
eissu
eof
critical
date
disc
usse
dby
thePar
ties
does
notre
quirea
resp
onse
from
theCou
rt.
9.5
.A
ny
Cu
ttin
gO
ffE
ffec
t
199.
Rom
ania
cont
ends
that
itspr
opos
edm
aritim
ebo
unda
rydo
esno
tcu
tof
fth
een
titlem
ents
toth
eco
ntin
enta
lsh
elfan
dto
the
exclu-
sive
econ
omic
zone
ofeith
erRom
ania
orU
kraine
.The
area
attrib
uted
toea
chPar
tydo
esno
ten
croa
chon
the
natu
ralpr
olon
gation
ofth
eot
her.
Rom
ania
argu
esth
atU
kraine
’sde
limitat
ion
line
lead
sto
acu
t-of
fof
Rom
ania’s
mar
itim
een
titlem
ents,in
particul
arin
theno
rthe
rnse
ctor
ofits
coas
tbe
twee
nth
eSu
lina
dyke
and
the
Saca
linPen
insu
la.Rom
ania
stat
esth
atth
ede
limitat
ion
line
advo
cated
byU
kraine
wou
ldm
ake
itex
trem
ely
diffi
cult
forRom
ania
toga
inac
cess
toth
epo
rtof
Sulin
aan
dth
em
aritim
ebr
anch
ofth
eD
anub
e,whi
chis
anim
portan
tro
utefo
rth
etran
sit
ofm
erch
andi
se.
Insh
ort,
acco
rdin
gto
Rom
ania,
Ukr
aine
’sclaim
edlin
ere
sultsin
adr
amat
iccu
rtailm
entof
the
mar
itim
ear
easof
fth
eRom
anian
coas
t,“a
sif
the
proj
ection
ofev
ery
stre
tch
ofU
kraine
’sco
astru
nun
obstru
cted
inev
ery
dire
ctio
nwhi
leth
ere
isno
oppo
sing
orad
jace
ntRom
anian
territor
y”.
*
200.
Acc
ordi
ngto
Ukr
aine
,Rom
ania’s
line
resu
ltsin
atw
o-fo
ldcu
t-of
fof
Ukr
aine
’sm
aritim
een
titlem
ents.First,th
em
aritim
een
titlem
ents
ofSe
rpen
ts’I
slan
dar
edr
amat
ically
trun
cated
byallo
cating
noco
ntin
en-
tal
shelf
and
noex
clus
ive
econ
omic
zone
toit.
Seco
nd,
Ukr
aine
’sso
uth-
facing
mainl
and
coas
tis
depr
ived
ofth
ear
eato
whi
chit
islega
llyen
titled
:“[T]h
een
dre
sult
isclea
rly
ineq
uita
ble
and
repr
esen
tsa
fund
a-m
enta
len
croa
chm
enton
cont
inen
talsh
elfan
dex
clus
iveec
onom
icar
eas
that
shou
ldap
pertain
toU
kraine
..
..”Thu
s,U
kraine
argu
esth
at“R
oman
ia’s
versio
nsof
equi
distan
cepr
oduc
esa
mar
ked
cut-of
feffect
ofth
epr
ojec
tion
ofU
kraine
’sco
asta
lfron
tno
rth
ofth
eland
boun
dary
”.M
oreo
verU
kraine
asse
rtsth
at
“not
only
does
Rom
ania’s
line
encr
oach
upon
the
extens
ion
orpr
ojec
tion
ofU
kraine
’sso
uth-
east-fac
ing
coas
t—
the
coas
tju
st
126
MARIT
IME
DELIM
ITATIO
N(J
UD
GM
EN
T)
abov
eth
eland
boun
dary
—it
also
prod
uces
acu
t-of
feffect
onth
epr
ojec
tion
ofU
kraine
’sso
uth-
facing
coas
tlyin
gbe
yond
Ode
ssa”
.
Ukr
aine
argu
esth
atits
line
fully
resp
ects
the
prin
cipl
eof
non-
encr
oach
men
t.It
refle
cts
the
geog
raph
ical
fact
that
“Ukr
aine
’sco
ast
fron
ting
the
area
tobe
delim
ited
proj
ects
ines
sent
ially
thre
edi
rectio
nswhi
leRom
ania’s
coas
tpr
ojec
tsba
sica
llyin
asing
ledi
rectio
n—
sout
h-ea
stwar
ds”.
**
201.
The
Cou
rtob
serv
esth
atth
ede
limitat
ion
lines
prop
osed
byth
ePar
ties
,in
particul
arth
eir
first
segm
ents,ea
chsign
ifica
ntly
curtailth
een
titlem
entof
the
othe
rPar
tyto
the
cont
inen
talsh
elfan
dth
eex
clus
ive
econ
omic
zone
.The
Rom
anian
lineob
stru
ctsth
een
titlem
entof
Ukr
aine
gene
rated
byits
coas
tad
jace
ntto
that
ofRom
ania,
the
entitlem
ent
furthe
rstre
ngth
ened
byth
eno
rthe
rnco
astof
Ukr
aine
.Atth
esa
metim
e,th
eU
kraini
anlin
ere
strictsth
een
titlem
entof
Rom
ania
gene
rated
byits
coas
t,in
particul
aritsfir
stse
ctor
betw
een
theSu
linady
kean
dth
eSa
calin
Pen
insu
la.
By
cont
rast,
the
prov
isio
nal
equi
distan
celin
edr
awn
byth
eCou
rtav
oids
such
adr
awba
ckas
itallo
wsth
ead
jace
ntco
asts
ofth
ePar
ties
topr
oduc
eth
eireffects,
interm
sof
mar
itim
een
titlem
ents,in
are
ason
able
and
mut
ually
balanc
edway
.Tha
tbe
ing
so,th
eCou
rtse
esno
reas
onto
adju
stth
epr
ovisio
naleq
uidi
stan
celin
eon
this
grou
nd.
9.6
.T
he
Sec
uri
tyC
on
sid
era
tio
ns
of
the
Pa
rtie
s
202.
Rom
ania
asse
rts
that
ther
eis
noev
iden
ceto
sugg
est
that
the
delim
itat
ion
adva
nced
byit
wou
ldad
versely
affect
Ukr
aine
’sse
curity
intere
sts,
includ
ing
Serp
ents’Island
,whi
chha
sa
belt
ofm
aritim
esp
ace
of12
naut
ical
mile
s.In
Rom
ania’s
view
,U
kraine
’sde
limitat
ion
line
runs
unre
ason
ably
clos
eto
theRom
anian
coas
tan
dth
usen
croa
ches
onth
ese
curity
intere
sts
ofRom
ania.
*
203.
Ukr
aine
claim
sth
atitslin
ein
noway
com
prom
ises
any
Rom
a-ni
anse
curity
intere
sts
beca
use
Ukr
aine
’sde
limitat
ion
line
acco
rds
toRom
ania
area
sof
cont
inen
talsh
elfan
dex
clus
ive
econ
omic
zone
offits
coas
tlin
e.In
this
rega
rdU
kraine
refers
to“t
hepr
edom
inan
tin
tere
stU
kraine
hasfo
rse
curity
and
othe
rm
atters
asafu
nction
ofitsge
ogra
phi-
calpo
sition
alon
gth
ispa
rtof
theBlack
Sea
onth
reeside
sof
theco
ast”
and
maint
ains
that
Ukr
aine
hasbe
enth
eon
lyPar
tyto
polic
eth
ear
eaan
dto
prev
entill
egal
fishi
ngan
dot
herac
tivities
inth
atar
ea.Acc
ordi
ng127
MARIT
IME
DELIM
ITATIO
N(J
UD
GM
EN
T)
toU
kraine
,itsclaim
isco
nsistent
with
this
aspe
ctof
theco
nduc
tof
the
Par
ties
,whe
reas
Rom
ania’s
claim
isno
t.
**
204.
The
Cou
rtco
nfine
sitse
lfto
two
obse
rvat
ions
.First,t
helegitim
ate
secu
rity
cons
ider
atio
nsof
thePar
ties
may
play
aro
lein
determ
inin
gth
efin
alde
limitat
ion
line
(see
Co
nti
nen
tal
Sh
elf
(L
iby
an
Ara
bJ
am
ah
iriy
a/
Ma
lta
),
Ju
dg
men
t,I.
C.J
.R
epo
rts
19
85,p.
42,pa
ra.51
).Se
cond
,in
the
pres
entca
seho
wev
er,t
hepr
ovisio
nale
quid
ista
ncelin
eit
hasdr
awn
sub-
stan
tially
differ
sfrom
thelin
esdr
awn
eith
erby
Rom
ania
orU
kraine
.The
prov
isio
naleq
uidi
stan
celin
ede
term
ined
byth
eCou
rtfu
llyre
spec
tsth
elegitim
atese
curity
intere
stsof
eith
erPar
ty.T
here
fore
,the
reis
none
edto
adju
stth
elin
eon
theba
sisof
this
cons
ider
atio
n.
10.T
HE
LIN
EOF
DELIM
ITATIO
N
205.
The
Cou
rtta
kesno
teof
thefa
ctth
atArticle
1of
the20
03St
ate
Bor
derRég
imeTre
atysitu
ates
them
eeting
poin
tof
theterritor
ials
easof
thePar
ties
at45
°05′
21″N
and
30°0
2′27
″E.Thi
ssu
ffice
sfo
rth
efix
ing
ofth
estar
ting
-poi
nt.
Rom
ania
and
Ukr
aine
have
both
indi
cated,
inco
nsid
erab
lede
tail,
the
cour
seth
atth
eirre
spec
tive
delim
itat
ion
lines
wou
ldth
enfo
llow
beyo
ndth
epo
intfix
edby
Article
1of
the20
03St
ateBor
derRég
imeTre
aty
(see
para
grap
h13
abov
ean
dsk
etch
-map
No.
1,p.
69).
The
Cou
rtno
testh
atth
ePar
ties
’po
sition
sdi
ffer
inth
isre
gard
.20
6.The
delim
itat
ion
linede
cide
dby
theCou
rt,fo
rwhi
chne
ithe
rth
ese
awar
den
dof
the
Sulin
ady
keno
rSe
rpen
ts’Island
ista
ken
asa
base
poin
t,be
gins
atPoi
nt1
and
follo
wsth
e12
-nau
tica
l-m
ilear
car
ound
Ser-
pent
s’Island
untilit
intersec
tswith
thelin
eeq
uidi
stan
tfrom
Rom
ania’s
and
Ukr
aine
’sad
jace
ntco
asts,as
defin
edab
ove;
from
ther
e,it
follo
ws
that
lineun
tili
tbe
com
esaf
fected
byba
sepo
ints
onth
eop
posite
coas
tsof
Rom
ania
and
Ukr
aine
.Fro
mth
istu
rnin
gpo
intth
ede
limitat
ion
lineru
nsalon
gth
elin
eeq
uidi
stan
tfrom
Rom
ania’s
and
Ukr
aine
’sop
posite
coas
ts(for
theco
urse
ofth
eeq
uidi
stan
celin
ese
epa
ragr
aph
154
abov
e).
207.
Rom
ania
maint
ains
that
the
endp
oint
ofth
ede
limitat
ion
line
issitu
ated
atco
-ord
inat
es43
°26′
50″
Nan
d31
°20′
10″
E(P
oint
Z).
Itas
sertsth
atdr
awin
gth
ede
limitat
ion
line
upto
Poi
ntZ
does
notaf
fect
anypo
ssib
leen
titlem
ents
ofth
ird
coun
triesto
mar
itim
ear
eas,
asPoi
ntZ
is“p
ractically
the
poin
teq
uidi
stan
tto
the
Rom
anian,
Ukr
aini
anan
dTur
kish
coas
ts,an
dis
farthe
rto
theBul
garian
coas
t”.
208.
Ukr
aine
argu
esth
atno
endp
oint
ofth
ede
limitat
ion
shou
ldbe128
MARIT
IME
DELIM
ITATIO
N(J
UD
GM
EN
T)
spec
ified
,so
asto
avoi
dan
yen
croa
chm
enton
possib
leen
titlem
ents
ofth
ird
Stat
es;t
helin
ewou
ldth
erefor
een
din
anar
row.T
helin
ead
voca
ted
byU
kraine
cont
inue
sfrom
thepo
intid
entifie
dby
itas
Poi
nt3
alon
gth
eaz
imut
h15
6un
tilit
reac
hesth
epo
intwhe
reth
ein
tere
stsof
third
Stat
espo
tent
ially
com
ein
topl
ay.
209.
The
Cou
rtco
nsid
ersth
atth
ede
limitat
ion
line
follo
wsth
eeq
ui-
distan
celin
ein
aso
uthe
rly
dire
ctio
nun
tilth
epo
intbe
yond
whi
chth
ein
tere
stsof
third
Stat
esm
aybe
affected
.
11.T
HE
DIS
PROPORTIO
NALIT
YT
EST
210.
The
Cou
rtno
wtu
rnsto
chec
kth
atth
ere
sult
thus
farar
rive
dat
,so
faras
the
envisa
ged
delim
itat
ion
line
isco
ncer
ned,
does
notlead
toan
ysign
ifica
ntdi
spro
portio
nalit
yby
refere
nce
toth
ere
spec
tive
coas
tal
leng
ths
and
the
appo
rtio
nmen
tof
area
sth
aten
sue.
Thi
sCou
rtag
rees
with
theob
serv
atio
nth
at
“itis
disp
ropo
rtio
nra
ther
than
any
gene
ralpr
incipl
eof
prop
ortion
-ality
whi
chis
the
releva
ntcr
iter
ion
orfa
ctor
...th
ere
can
neve
rbe
aqu
estion
ofco
mpl
etely
refa
shio
ning
natu
re...it
isra
ther
aqu
estion
ofre
med
ying
thedi
spro
portio
nalit
yan
din
equi
tabl
eeffects
prod
uced
bypa
rticul
arge
ogra
phical
confi
gura
tion
sor
feat
ures
”(A
ng
lo-F
ren
chC
on
tin
enta
lS
hel
fC
ase
,R
IAA,Vol
.XVIII,
p.58
,pa
ra.10
1).
211.
The
cont
inen
tals
helf
and
exclus
iveec
onom
iczo
neallo
cation
sar
eno
ttobe
assign
edin
prop
ortion
toleng
thof
resp
ective
coas
tlin
es.R
athe
r,th
eCou
rtwill
chec
k,ex
po
stfa
cto,on
theeq
uita
blen
essof
thede
limita-
tion
line
itha
sco
nstruc
ted
(Del
imit
ati
on
of
the
ma
riti
me
bo
un
da
ryb
etw
een
Gu
inea
an
dG
uin
ea-B
issa
u,
RIA
A,
Vol
.XIX
,pp
.18
3-18
4,pa
ras.
94-9
5).
212.
Thi
sch
ecki
ngca
non
lybe
appr
oxim
ate.
Diver
setech
niqu
esha
vein
thepa
stbe
enus
edfo
ras
sessin
gco
asta
llen
gths
,with
noclea
rre
quire-
men
tsof
intern
atio
nallaw
having
been
show
nas
towhe
ther
the
real
coas
tlin
esh
ould
befo
llowed
,or
base
lines
used
,or
whe
ther
orno
tco
asts
relating
toin
tern
alwat
erssh
ould
beex
clud
ed.
213.
The
Cou
rtca
nnot
but
obse
rve
that
variou
strib
unals,
and
the
Cou
rtitse
lf,ha
vedr
awn
differ
entco
nclu
sion
sov
erth
eye
arsas
towha
tdi
spar
ity
inco
asta
lleng
thswou
ldco
nstitu
tea
sign
ifica
ntdi
spro
portio
n-ality
whi
chsu
gges
ted
the
delim
itat
ion
line
was
ineq
uita
ble
and
still
requ
ired
adju
stm
ent.
Thi
sre
mains
inea
chca
sea
mat
terfo
rth
eCou
rt’s
appr
eciation
,whi
chit
will
exer
cise
byre
fere
nceto
theov
erallge
ogra
phy
ofth
ear
ea.
214.
Inth
epr
esen
tca
seth
eCou
rtha
sm
easu
red
theco
asts
acco
rdin
gto
their
gene
raldi
rectio
n.It
has
not
used
base
lines
sugg
ested
byth
ePar
ties
for
this
mea
sure
men
t.Coa
stlin
esalon
gsid
ewat
ers
lyin
gbe
hind129
MARIT
IME
DELIM
ITATIO
N(J
UD
GM
EN
T)
gulfsor
deep
inlets
have
notbe
enin
clud
edfo
rth
ispu
rpos
e.The
sem
eas-
urem
ents
arene
cessar
ilyap
prox
imat
egive
nth
atth
epu
rpos
eof
this
final
stag
eis
tom
akesu
reth
ereis
nosign
ifica
ntdi
spro
portio
nalit
y.
215.
Itsu
ffice
sfo
rth
isth
ird
stag
efo
rth
eCou
rtto
note
that
thera
tio
ofth
ere
spec
tive
coas
talleng
thsfo
rRom
ania
and
Ukr
aine
,m
easu
red
asde
scribe
dab
ove,
isap
prox
imat
ely1:2.8an
dth
era
tio
ofth
ere
leva
ntar
eabe
twee
nRom
ania
and
Ukr
aine
isap
prox
imat
ely
1:2.1.
216.
The
Cou
rtis
notof
the
view
that
this
sugg
ests
that
the
line
asco
nstruc
ted,
and
chec
ked
care
fully
for
any
releva
ntcirc
umstan
ces
that
might
have
war
rant
edad
justm
ent,
requ
ires
any
altera
tion
.
12.T
HE
MARIT
IME
BOU
ND
ARY
DELIM
ITIN
GTH
EC
ON
TIN
EN
TAL
SHELF
AN
DE
XCLU
SIVE
ECON
OM
ICZ
ON
ES
217.
The
Cou
rtob
serv
esth
atam
aritim
ebo
unda
ryde
limitin
gth
eco
n-tine
ntal
shelfan
dex
clus
iveec
onom
iczo
nesis
notto
beas
sim
ilated
toa
Stat
ebo
unda
ryse
para
ting
territor
ies
ofSt
ates
.The
form
erde
fines
the
limits
ofm
aritim
ezo
nes
whe
reun
der
intern
atio
nallaw
coas
talSt
ates
have
certain
sove
reign
righ
tsfo
rde
fined
purp
oses
.The
latter
defin
esth
eterritor
iallim
itsof
Stat
eso
vere
ignt
y.Con
sequ
ently,
theCou
rtco
nsid
ers
that
noco
nfus
ion
asto
thena
ture
ofth
em
aritim
ebo
unda
ryde
limitin
gth
eex
clus
iveec
onom
iczo
nean
dth
eco
ntin
enta
lshe
lfar
ises
and
will
thus
empl
oyth
isterm
.21
8.The
line
ofth
em
aritim
ebo
unda
ryes
tabl
ishe
dby
the
Cou
rtbe
gins
atPoi
nt1,
thepo
intof
intersec
tion
ofth
eou
terlim
itof
theterri-
torial
sea
ofRom
ania
with
the
territor
ialse
aof
Ukr
aine
arou
ndSe
r-pe
nts’
Island
asstip
ulat
edin
Article
1of
the20
03St
ateBor
derRég
ime
Tre
aty
(see
para
grap
h28
abov
e).Fro
mPoi
nt1
itfo
llowsth
ear
cof
the
12-n
autica
l-m
ileterritor
ialse
aof
Serp
ents’Island
untilth
ear
cin
tersec
tsat
Poi
nt2,
with
co-o
rdin
ates
45°0
3′18
.5″N
and
30°0
9′24
.6″E,with
alin
eeq
uidi
stan
tfrom
thead
jace
ntco
asts
ofRom
ania
and
Ukr
aine
,pl
ot-
ted
byre
fere
nceto
base
poin
tslo
cated
onth
eland
war
den
dof
theSu
lina
dyke
and
theso
uth-
easter
ntip
ofTsy
gank
aIsland
.The
mar
itim
ebo
und-
ary
from
Poi
nt2
cont
inue
salon
gth
eeq
uidi
stan
celin
e5in
aso
uth-
easter
lydi
rectio
nun
tilPoi
nt3,
with
co-o
rdin
ates
44°4
6′38
.7″
Nan
d30
°58′
37.3
″E
(Poi
ntA
ofth
epr
ovisio
naleq
uidi
stan
celin
e),whe
reth
eeq
uidi
stan
celin
ebe
com
esaf
fected
byaba
sepo
intlo
cated
onth
eSa
calin
Pen
insu
la.
5For
the
desc
ript
ion
ofth
een
tire
cour
seof
the
equi
distan
celin
e,se
epa
ragr
aph
154
abov
e.
130
MARIT
IME
DELIM
ITATIO
N(J
UD
GM
EN
T)
International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea
Dispute concerning delimitation of the maritime boundary
between Bangladesh and Myanmar in the Bay of Bengal
(Bangladesh/Myanmar)
Judgment of 14 March 2012
ITLOS Reports, vol. 12 (2012), pp. 103-115, 131-143, paras. 341-394, 450-499
INTE
RN
ATI
ON
AL
TRIB
UN
AL
FOR
TH
E LA
W O
F TH
E SE
AYE
AR
201
2
14 M
arch
201
2
No.
16
List
of c
ases
:
DIS
PUTE
CO
NC
ERN
ING
DEL
IMIT
ATI
ON
OF
THE
MA
RIT
IME
BO
UN
DA
RY
BET
WEE
N B
ANG
LAD
ESH
AN
D M
YAN
MA
R IN
TH
E B
AY
OF
BEN
GA
L
(BA
NG
LAD
ES
H/M
YAN
MA
R)
JUD
GM
ENT
Juris
dict
ion
to d
elim
it th
e co
ntin
enta
l she
lf in
its
entir
ety
341.
Whi
le th
e P
artie
s ar
e in
agr
eem
ent t
hat t
he T
ribun
al is
requ
este
d to
delim
it th
e co
ntin
enta
l she
lf be
twee
n th
em in
the
Bay
of B
enga
l with
in 2
00 n
m,
they
dis
agre
e as
to w
heth
er th
e Tr
ibun
al h
as ju
risdi
ctio
n to
del
imit
the
cont
inen
tal s
helf
beyo
nd 2
00 n
man
d w
heth
er th
e Tr
ibun
al, i
f it d
eter
min
es
that
it h
as ju
risdi
ctio
n to
do
so, s
houl
d ex
erci
se s
uch
juris
dict
ion.
342.
As
poin
ted
out i
n pa
ragr
aph
45,M
yanm
ardo
es n
ot d
ispu
te th
at “a
s a
mat
ter o
f prin
cipl
e, th
e de
limita
tion
of th
e co
ntin
enta
l she
lf, in
clud
ing
the
shel
f
beyo
nd 2
00[n
m],
coul
d fa
ll w
ithin
the
juris
dict
ion
of th
e Tr
ibun
al”.
How
ever
, it
rais
es th
e is
sue
of th
e ad
visa
bilit
y in
the
pres
ent c
ase
of th
e ex
erci
se b
y th
e
Trib
unal
of i
ts ju
risdi
ctio
n w
ith re
spec
t to
the
delim
itatio
n of
the
cont
inen
tal
shel
f bey
ond
200
nm.
343.
Mya
nmar
sta
tes
in it
s C
ount
er M
emor
ial t
hat t
he q
uest
ion
of th
e
juris
dict
ion
of th
e Tr
ibun
al re
gard
ing
the
delim
itatio
n of
the
cont
inen
tal s
helf
beyo
nd 2
00 n
min
gen
eral
sho
uld
not a
rise
in th
e pr
esen
t cas
e be
caus
e th
e
delim
itatio
n lin
e, in
its
view
, ter
min
ates
wel
l bef
ore
reac
hing
the
200
nmlim
it
from
the
base
lines
from
whi
ch th
e te
rrito
rial s
ea is
mea
sure
d.
344.
At t
he s
ame
time
Mya
nmar
sub
mits
that
“[e]
ven
if th
e Tr
ibun
al w
ere
to
deci
de th
at th
ere
coul
d be
a s
ingl
e m
ariti
me
boun
dary
bey
ond
200
[nm
](qu
od
non)
, the
Trib
unal
wou
ld s
till n
ot h
ave
juris
dict
ion
to d
eter
min
e th
is li
ne
beca
use
any
judi
cial
pro
noun
cem
ent o
n th
ese
issu
es m
ight
pre
judi
ce th
e
right
s of
third
par
ties
and
also
thos
e re
latin
g to
the
inte
rnat
iona
l sea
bed
area
”.
345.
Mya
nmar
furth
er s
ubm
its th
at “[
a]s
long
as
the
oute
r lim
it of
the
cont
inen
tal s
helf
has
not b
een
esta
blis
hed
on th
e ba
sis
of th
e
reco
mm
enda
tions
” of t
he C
omm
issi
on o
n th
e Li
mits
of t
he C
ontin
enta
l She
lf
(her
eina
fter “
the
Com
mis
sion
”), “t
he T
ribun
al, a
s a
cour
t of l
aw, c
anno
t
wha
t the
out
er li
mits
are
”. It
argu
es in
this
rega
rd th
at:
A re
view
of
a
Stat
e’s
subm
issi
on
and
the
mak
ing
of
reco
mm
enda
tions
by
the
Com
mis
sion
on
this
sub
mis
sion
is
a ne
cess
ary
prer
equi
site
for
any
dete
rmin
atio
n of
the
oute
r lim
its o
f th
e co
ntin
enta
l sh
elf
of a
coa
stal
Sta
te ‘
on t
he b
asis
of
thes
e re
com
men
datio
ns’ u
nder
arti
cle
76(8
) of U
NC
LOS
and
the
area
of
cont
inen
tal s
helf
beyo
nd 2
00[n
m]t
o w
hich
a S
tate
is p
oten
tially
en
title
d; t
his,
in
turn
, is
a n
eces
sary
pre
cond
ition
to
any
judi
cial
de
term
inat
ion
of t
he d
ivis
ion
of a
reas
of
over
lapp
ing
sove
reig
n rig
hts
to t
he n
atur
al r
esou
rces
of
the
cont
inen
tal
shel
f be
yond
20
0[n
m].
[…]
To r
ever
se t
he p
roce
ss [
...],
to a
djud
icat
e w
ith
resp
ect
to r
ight
s th
e ex
tent
of
whi
ch is
unk
now
n, w
ould
not
onl
y pu
t th
is T
ribun
al a
t od
ds w
ith o
ther
tre
aty
bodi
es,
but
with
the
en
tire
stru
ctur
e of
the
Con
vent
ion
and
the
syst
em o
f int
erna
tiona
l oc
ean
gove
rnan
ce.
346.
In s
uppo
rt of
its
posi
tion,
Mya
nmar
refe
rs to
the
Arb
itral
Aw
ard
in th
e
Cas
e co
ncer
ning
the
Del
imita
tion
of M
ariti
me
Are
as b
etw
een
Can
ada
and
Fran
ce o
f 10
June
199
2, w
hich
sta
tes:
“[i]t
is n
ot p
ossi
ble
for a
trib
unal
to
reac
h a
deci
sion
by
assu
min
g hy
poth
etic
ally
the
even
tual
ity th
at s
uch
right
s
will
in fa
ct e
xist
” (D
ecis
ion
of 1
0 Ju
ne 1
992,
ILM
,Vol
. 31
(199
2), p
. 114
5, a
t
p.11
72, p
ara.
81).
347.
Mya
nmar
ass
erts
that
in th
eca
se c
once
rnin
gTe
rrito
rial a
nd M
ariti
me
Dis
pute
bet
wee
n N
icar
agua
and
Hon
dura
s in
the
Car
ibbe
an S
ea(N
icar
agua
v.H
ondu
ras)
, the
ICJ
decl
ined
to d
elim
it th
e co
ntin
enta
l she
lf be
yond
200
nm
betw
een
Nic
arag
ua a
nd H
ondu
ras
beca
use
the
Com
mis
sion
had
not
yet
mad
e re
com
men
datio
ns to
the
two
coun
tries
rega
rdin
g th
e co
ntin
enta
l she
lf
beyo
nd 2
00nm
.
348.
Dur
ing
the
oral
pro
ceed
ings
Mya
nmar
cla
rifie
d its
pos
ition
, sta
ting,
inte
r
alia
, tha
t in
prin
cipl
e it
did
not q
uest
ion
the
juris
dict
ion
of th
e Tr
ibun
al. T
he
Par
ties
acce
pted
the
Trib
unal
’s ju
risdi
ctio
n on
the
sam
e te
rms,
in a
ccor
danc
e
with
the
prov
isio
ns o
f arti
cle
287,
par
agra
ph 1
, of t
he C
onve
ntio
n, “f
or th
e
settl
emen
t of d
ispu
te […
] rel
atin
g to
the
delim
itatio
n of
mar
itim
e bo
unda
ry
betw
een
the
two
coun
tries
in th
e B
ay o
f Ben
gal”.
Acc
ordi
ng to
Mya
nmar
, the
only
pro
blem
that
aro
se c
once
rned
the
poss
ibilit
y th
at th
e Tr
ibun
al m
ight
in
cont
inen
tal s
helf
beyo
nd 2
00nm
.
349.
Mya
nmar
furth
er o
bser
ved
that
if th
e Tr
ibun
al “n
ever
thel
ess
wer
e to
cons
ider
the
App
licat
ion
adm
issi
ble
on th
is p
oint
–qu
od n
on–
you
coul
d no
t
but d
efer
judg
men
t on
this
asp
ect o
f the
mat
ter u
ntil
the
Par
ties,
in
acco
rdan
ce w
ith A
rticl
e 76
of t
he C
onve
ntio
n, h
ave
take
n a
posi
tion
on th
e
reco
mm
enda
tions
of t
he C
omm
issi
on c
once
rnin
g th
e ex
iste
nce
of
entit
lem
ents
of t
he tw
o P
artie
s to
the
cont
inen
tal s
helf
beyo
nd 2
00 [n
m]a
nd, i
f
such
ent
itlem
ents
exi
st, o
n th
eir s
eaw
ard
exte
nsio
n –
i.e.,
on th
e ou
ter (
not
late
ral,
oute
r) lim
its o
f the
con
tinen
tal s
helf
of th
e tw
o co
untri
es”.
350.
Ban
glad
esh
is o
f the
vie
w th
at th
e Tr
ibun
al is
exp
ress
ly e
mpo
wer
ed b
y
the
Con
vent
ion
to a
djud
icat
e di
sput
es b
etw
een
Sta
tes
aris
ing
unde
r
artic
les
76 a
nd 8
3, in
rega
rd to
the
delim
itatio
n of
the
cont
inen
tal s
helf.
As
the
Con
vent
ion
draw
s no
dis
tinct
ion
in th
is re
gard
bet
wee
n ju
risdi
ctio
n ov
er th
e
inne
r par
t of t
he c
ontin
enta
l she
lf, i.
e., t
hat p
art w
ithin
200
nm
, and
the
part
beyo
nd th
at d
ista
nce,
acc
ordi
ng to
Ban
glad
esh,
del
imita
tion
of th
e en
tire
cont
inen
tal s
helf
is c
over
ed b
y ar
ticle
83,
and
the
Trib
unal
pla
inly
has
juris
dict
ion
to c
arry
out
del
imita
tion
beyo
nd 2
00 n
m.
351.
Res
pond
ing
to M
yanm
ar’s
arg
umen
t tha
t “in
any
eve
nt, t
he q
uest
ion
of
delim
iting
the
shel
f bey
ond
200
[nm
]doe
s no
t aris
e be
caus
e th
e de
limita
tion
line
term
inat
es w
ell b
efor
e re
achi
ng th
e 20
0 [n
m]l
imit”
, Ban
glad
esh
stat
es
that
“Mya
nmar
’s a
rgum
ent t
hat B
angl
ades
h ha
s no
con
tinen
tal s
helf
beyo
nd
200
[nm
]is
base
d in
stea
d on
the
prop
ositi
on th
at o
nce
the
area
with
in
200
[nm
]is
delim
ited,
the
term
inus
of B
angl
ades
h’s
shel
f fal
ls s
hort
of th
e
200
[nm
]lim
it”. B
angl
ades
h co
nten
ds th
at “[
t]his
can
onl
y be
a v
alid
arg
umen
t
if th
e Tr
ibun
al fi
rst a
ccep
ts M
yanm
ar’s
arg
umen
ts in
favo
ur o
f an
equi
dist
ance
line
with
in 2
00 [n
m].
Such
an
outc
ome
wou
ld re
quire
the
Trib
unal
to d
isre
gard
entir
ely
the
rele
vant
circ
umst
ance
s re
lied
upon
by
Ban
glad
esh”
.
352.
With
refe
renc
e to
Mya
nmar
’s a
rgum
ent r
egar
ding
the
right
s of
third
parti
es, B
angl
ades
h st
ates
that
a p
oten
tial o
verla
ppin
g cl
aim
of a
third
Sta
te
betw
een
two
Sta
tes
that
are
sub
ject
to th
e ju
risdi
ctio
n of
the
Trib
unal
,
beca
use
third
Sta
tes
are
not b
ound
by
the
Trib
unal
’s ju
dgm
ent a
nd th
eir r
ight
s
are
unaf
fect
ed b
y it.
Ban
glad
esh
poin
ts o
ut th
at s
o fa
r as
third
Sta
tes
are
conc
erne
d, a
del
imita
tion
judg
men
t by
the
Trib
unal
is m
erel
y re
s in
ter a
lios
acta
and
that
this
ass
uran
ce is
pro
vide
d in
arti
cle
33, p
arag
raph
2, o
f the
Sta
tute
.
353.
Ban
glad
esh
also
obs
erve
s th
at M
yanm
ar’s
con
tent
ion
“with
rega
rd to
the
inte
rnat
iona
l sea
bed
area
dis
rega
rds
its o
wn
subm
issi
on to
the
CLC
S,
whi
chm
akes
cle
ar th
at th
e ou
ter l
imits
of t
he c
ontin
enta
l she
lf vi
s-à-
vis
the
inte
rnat
iona
l sea
bed
are
far r
emov
ed fr
om th
e m
ariti
me
boun
dary
with
Ban
glad
esh”
.
354.
Ban
glad
esh
obse
rves
that
with
resp
ect t
o th
e po
tent
ial a
reas
of o
verla
p
with
Indi
a, M
yanm
ar a
ccep
ts th
at e
ven
if th
e Tr
ibun
al c
anno
t fix
a tr
ipoi
nt
betw
een
thre
e S
tate
s, it
can
indi
cate
the
“gen
eral
dire
ctio
n fo
r the
fina
l par
t of
the
mar
itim
e bo
unda
ry b
etw
een
Mya
nmar
and
Ban
glad
esh”
, and
that
doi
ng s
o
wou
ld b
e “in
acc
orda
nce
with
the
wel
l-est
ablis
hed
prac
tise”
of i
nter
natio
nal
cour
ts a
nd tr
ibun
als.
355.
Insu
mm
ariz
ing
its p
ositi
on o
n th
e is
sue
of th
e rig
hts
of th
ird p
artie
s an
d
the
juris
dict
ion
of th
e Tr
ibun
al,B
angl
ades
h st
ates
that
:
1.[…
]
2.Th
e de
limita
tion
by th
e Tr
ibun
al o
f a m
ariti
me
boun
dary
in
the
cont
inen
tal
shel
f be
yond
200
[nm
]do
es n
ot p
reju
dice
the
rig
hts
of t
hird
par
ties.
In
the
sam
e w
ay t
hat
inte
rnat
iona
l co
urts
an
d tri
buna
ls h
ave
cons
iste
ntly
exe
rcis
ed j
uris
dict
ion
whe
re t
he
right
s of
th
ird
Stat
es
are
invo
lved
, IT
LOS
may
ex
erci
se
juris
dict
ion,
eve
n if
the
right
s of
the
inte
rnat
iona
l com
mun
ity to
the
inte
rnat
iona
l se
abed
wer
e in
volv
ed,
whi
ch i
n th
is c
ase
they
are
no
t.
3.W
ith r
espe
ct t
o th
e ar
ea o
f sh
elf
whe
re t
he c
laim
s of
Ba
ngla
desh
and
Mya
nmar
ove
rlap
with
thos
e of
Indi
a, th
e Tr
ibun
al
need
onl
y de
term
ine
whi
ch o
f th
e tw
o Pa
rties
in
the
pres
ent
proc
eedi
ng h
as t
he b
ette
r cl
aim
, an
d ef
fect
a d
elim
itatio
n th
at is
on
ly b
indi
ng o
n Ba
ngla
desh
and
Mya
nmar
. Suc
h a
delim
itatio
n as
on In
dia.
356.
Ban
glad
esh
obse
rves
that
ther
e is
no
conf
lict b
etw
een
the
role
s of
the
Trib
unal
and
the
Com
mis
sion
in re
gard
to th
e co
ntin
enta
l she
lf an
d th
at, t
o th
e
cont
rary
, the
role
s ar
e co
mpl
emen
tary
. Ban
glad
esh
also
sta
tes
that
the
Trib
unal
has
juris
dict
ion
to d
elim
it bo
unda
ries
with
in th
e ou
ter c
ontin
enta
l she
lf
and
that
the
Com
mis
sion
mak
es re
com
men
datio
ns a
s to
the
delin
eatio
n of
the
oute
r lim
its o
f the
con
tinen
tal s
helf
with
the
Are
a, a
s de
fined
in a
rticl
e 1,
para
grap
h 1,
of t
he C
onve
ntio
n, p
rovi
ded
ther
e ar
e no
dis
pute
d cl
aim
s
betw
een
Stat
es w
ith o
ppos
ite o
r adj
acen
t coa
sts.
357.
Ban
glad
esh
adds
that
the
Com
mis
sion
may
not
mak
e an
y
reco
mm
enda
tions
on
the
oute
r lim
its u
ntil
any
such
dis
pute
is re
solv
ed b
y th
e
Trib
unal
or a
noth
er ju
dici
al o
r arb
itral
bod
y or
by
agre
emen
t bet
wee
n th
e
parti
es, u
nles
s th
e pa
rties
giv
e th
eir c
onse
nt th
at th
e C
omm
issi
on re
view
thei
r
subm
issi
ons.
Acc
ordi
ng to
Ban
glad
esh,
in th
e pr
esen
t cas
e, “t
he C
omm
issi
on
is p
recl
uded
from
act
ing
due
to th
e Pa
rties
’ dis
pute
d cl
aim
s in
the
oute
r
cont
inen
tal s
helf
and
the
refu
sal b
y at
leas
t one
of t
hem
(Ban
glad
esh)
to
cons
ent t
o th
e C
omm
issi
on’s
act
ions
”.
358.
Ban
glad
esh
poin
ts o
ut th
at if
Mya
nmar
’s a
rgum
ent w
ere
acce
pted
, the
Trib
unal
wou
ld h
ave
to w
ait f
or th
e C
omm
issi
on to
act
and
the
Com
mis
sion
wou
ld h
ave
to w
ait f
or th
e Tr
ibun
al to
act
. Acc
ordi
ng to
Ban
glad
esh,
the
resu
lt
wou
ld b
e th
at, w
hene
ver p
artie
s ar
e in
dis
pute
in re
gard
to th
e co
ntin
enta
l
shel
f bey
ond
200
nm, t
he c
ompu
lsor
y pr
oced
ures
ent
ailin
g bi
ndin
g de
cisi
ons
unde
r Par
tXV
, Sec
tion
2, o
f the
Con
vent
ion
wou
ld h
ave
no p
ract
ical
appl
icat
ion.
Ban
glad
esh
adds
that
“[i]n
effe
ct, t
he v
ery
obje
ct a
nd p
urpo
se o
f
the
UN
CLO
Sdi
sput
e se
ttlem
ent p
roce
dure
s w
ould
be
nega
ted.
Mya
nmar
’s
posi
tion
open
s a
juris
dict
iona
l bla
ck h
ole
into
whi
ch a
ll di
sput
es c
once
rnin
g
mar
itim
e bo
unda
ries
in th
e ou
ter c
ontin
enta
l she
lf w
ould
fore
ver d
isap
pear
”.
359.
Sum
mar
izin
g its
pos
ition
, Ban
glad
esh
stat
es th
at in
por
trayi
ng
reco
mm
enda
tions
by
the
Com
mis
sion
as
a pr
ereq
uisi
te to
the
exer
cise
of
wou
ld m
ake
the
exer
cise
by
the
Trib
unal
of i
ts ju
risdi
ctio
n w
ith re
spec
t to
the
cont
inen
tal s
helf
beyo
nd 2
00 n
mim
poss
ible
, whi
chis
inco
nsis
tent
with
Par
tXV
and
with
arti
cle
76, p
arag
raph
10, o
f the
Con
vent
ion.
* *
*
360.
The
Trib
unal
will
now
con
side
rwhe
ther
it h
as ju
risdi
ctio
n to
del
imit
the
cont
inen
tal s
helf
beyo
nd 2
00nm
.
361.
Arti
cle
76 o
f the
Con
vent
ion
embo
dies
the
conc
ept o
f a s
ingl
e
cont
inen
tal s
helf.
In a
ccor
danc
e w
ith a
rticl
e 77
, par
agra
phs
1 an
d 2,
of t
he
Con
vent
ion,
the
coas
tal S
tate
exe
rcis
es e
xclu
sive
sov
erei
gn ri
ghts
ove
r the
cont
inen
tal s
helf
in it
s en
tiret
y w
ithou
t any
dis
tinct
ion
bein
g m
ade
betw
een
the
shel
f with
in 2
00 n
man
d th
e sh
elf b
eyon
d th
at li
mit.
Arti
cle
83 o
f the
Con
vent
ion,
con
cern
ing
the
delim
itatio
n of
the
cont
inen
tal s
helf
betw
een
Sta
tes
with
opp
osite
or a
djac
ent c
oast
s, li
kew
ise
does
not
mak
e an
y su
ch
dist
inct
ion.
362.
In th
is re
gard
, the
Trib
unal
not
es th
at in
the
Arbi
tratio
n be
twee
n
Bar
bado
s an
d Tr
inid
ad a
nd T
obag
o, th
e A
rbitr
al T
ribun
al d
ecid
edth
at “t
he
disp
ute
to b
e de
alt w
ith b
y th
e Tr
ibun
al in
clud
es th
e ou
ter c
ontin
enta
l she
lf,
sinc
e […
] it e
ither
form
s pa
rt of
, or i
s su
ffici
ently
clo
sely
rela
ted
to, t
he d
ispu
te
[…] a
nd […
] in
any
even
t the
re is
in la
w o
nly
asi
ngle
‘con
tinen
tal s
helf’
rath
er
than
an
inne
r con
tinen
tal s
helf
and
a se
para
te e
xten
ded
or o
uter
con
tinen
tal
shel
f”(D
ecis
ion
of 1
1 A
pril
2006
,RIA
A,V
ol. X
XV
II,p.
147
, at p
p.20
8-20
9,
para
.213
).
363.
For t
he fo
rego
ing
reas
ons,
the
Trib
unal
find
s th
at it
has
juris
dict
ion
to
delim
it th
e co
ntin
enta
l she
lf in
its
entir
ety.
The
Trib
unal
will
now
con
side
r
whe
ther
, in
the
circ
umst
ance
s of
this
cas
e, it
is a
ppro
pria
te to
exer
cise
that
juris
dict
ion.
364.
The
Trib
unal
will
first
add
ress
Mya
nmar
’s a
rgum
ent t
hat B
angl
ades
h’s
cont
inen
tal s
helf
cann
ot e
xten
d be
yond
200
nm
beca
use
the
mar
itim
e ar
ea in
whi
ch B
angl
ades
h en
joys
sov
erei
gn ri
ghts
with
resp
ect t
o na
tura
l res
ourc
es o
f
the
cont
inen
tal s
helf
does
not
ext
end
up to
200
nm
.
365.
The
Trib
unal
not
es th
at th
is a
rgum
ent c
anno
tbe
sust
aine
d, g
iven
its
deci
sion
, as
set o
utin
par
agra
ph 3
39, t
hat t
he d
elim
itatio
n lin
e of
the
excl
usiv
e ec
onom
ic z
one
and
the
cont
inen
tal s
helf
reac
hes
the
200
nmlim
it.
366.
The
Trib
unal
will
now
turn
to th
e qu
estio
n of
whe
ther
the
exer
cise
of i
ts
juris
dict
ion
coul
d pr
ejud
ice
the
right
s of
third
par
ties.
367.
The
Trib
unal
obs
erve
s th
at,a
s pr
ovid
ed fo
r in
artic
le 3
3, p
arag
raph
2,
of th
e St
atut
e, it
s de
cisi
on “s
hall
have
no b
indi
ng fo
rce
exce
pt b
etw
een
the
parti
esin
resp
ect o
f tha
tpar
ticul
ar d
ispu
te”.
Acc
ordi
ngly
, the
del
imita
tion
of
the
cont
inen
tal s
helf
by th
e Tr
ibun
al c
anno
t pre
judi
ce th
e rig
hts
of th
ird
parti
es. M
oreo
ver,
it is
est
ablis
hed
prac
tice
that
the
dire
ctio
n of
the
seaw
ard
segm
ent o
f a m
ariti
me
boun
dary
may
be
dete
rmin
ed w
ithou
t ind
icat
ing
its
prec
ise
term
inus
, for
exa
mpl
e by
spe
cify
ing
that
it c
ontin
ues
until
it re
ache
s
the
area
whe
re th
e rig
hts
of th
ird p
artie
sm
ay b
e af
fect
ed.
368.
In a
dditi
on, a
s fa
r as
the
Are
a is
con
cern
ed, t
he T
ribun
al w
ishe
s to
obse
rve
that
, as
is e
vide
nt fr
om th
eP
artie
s’ s
ubm
issi
ons
to th
e C
omm
issi
on,
the
cont
inen
tal s
helf
beyo
nd 2
00 n
mth
atis
the
subj
ect o
f del
imita
tion
in th
e
pres
ent c
ase
is s
ituat
ed fa
r fro
m th
e A
rea.
Acc
ordi
ngly
, the
Trib
unal
, by
draw
ing
a lin
e of
del
imita
tion,
will
not p
reju
dice
the
right
s of
the
inte
rnat
iona
l
com
mun
ity.
369.
The
Trib
unal
will
now
exa
min
e th
e is
sue
of w
heth
er it
sho
uld
refra
inin
the
pres
ent c
ase
from
exe
rcis
ing
its ju
risdi
ctio
n to
del
imit
the
cont
inen
tal s
helf
beyo
nd 2
00 n
mun
til s
uch
time
as th
e ou
ter l
imits
of t
he c
ontin
enta
l she
lf ha
ve
been
est
ablis
hed
by e
ach
Party
pur
suan
t to
artic
le 7
6, p
arag
raph
8, o
f the
reco
mm
enda
tions
to e
ach
Party
on
its s
ubm
issi
on a
nd e
ach
Par
ty h
as h
ad th
e
oppo
rtuni
ty to
con
side
r its
reac
tion
to th
e re
com
men
datio
ns.
370.
The
Trib
unal
wis
hes
to p
oint
out
that
the
abse
nce
of e
stab
lishe
d ou
ter
limits
of a
mar
itim
e zo
ne d
oes
not p
recl
ude
delim
itatio
n of
that
zon
e. L
ack
of
agre
emen
t on
base
lines
has
not
bee
n co
nsid
ered
an
impe
dim
ent t
o th
e
delim
itatio
n of
the
terri
toria
l sea
or t
he e
xclu
sive
eco
nom
ic z
one
notw
ithst
andi
ng th
e fa
ct th
at d
ispu
tes
rega
rdin
g ba
selin
es a
ffect
the
prec
ise
seaw
ard
limits
of t
hese
mar
itim
e ar
eas.
How
ever
, in
such
cas
es th
e qu
estio
n
of th
e en
title
men
t to
mar
itim
e ar
eas
of th
e pa
rties
con
cern
eddi
d no
t aris
e.
371.
The
Trib
unal
mus
t the
refo
re c
onsi
derw
heth
er it
is a
ppro
pria
te to
proc
eed
with
the
delim
itatio
n of
the
cont
inen
tal s
helf
beyo
nd 2
00 n
m g
iven
the
role
oft
he C
omm
issi
on a
s pr
ovid
ed fo
r in
artic
le 7
6, p
arag
raph
8, o
f the
Con
vent
ion
and
artic
le 3
, par
agra
ph 1
,ofA
nnex
IIto
the
Con
vent
ion.
372.
Pur
suan
t to
artic
le31
of t
he V
ienn
a C
onve
ntio
n,th
e C
onve
ntio
n is
to
be in
terp
rete
d in
goo
d fa
ith in
acc
orda
nce
with
the
ordi
nary
mea
ning
of i
ts
term
s in
thei
r con
text
and
in th
e lig
ht o
f its
obj
ect a
nd p
urpo
se. A
s st
ated
in
the
Advi
sory
Opi
nion
oft
he S
eabe
d D
ispu
tes
Cha
mbe
r, ar
ticle
31
of th
e
Vie
nna
Con
vent
ion
is to
be
cons
ider
ed “a
s re
flect
ing
cust
omar
y in
tern
atio
nal
law
”(R
espo
nsib
ilitie
s an
d ob
ligat
ions
of S
tate
s sp
onso
ring
pers
ons
and
entit
ies
with
resp
ect t
o ac
tiviti
es in
the
Are
a (R
eque
st fo
r Adv
isor
y O
pini
on
subm
itted
to th
e S
eabe
d D
ispu
tes
Cha
mbe
r), 1
Febr
uary
201
1, p
ara.
57).
373.
The
Con
vent
ion
sets
up
an in
stitu
tiona
l fra
mew
ork
with
a n
umbe
r of
bodi
es to
impl
emen
t its
pro
visi
ons,
incl
udin
g th
e C
omm
issi
on, t
he
Inte
rnat
iona
l Sea
bed
Auth
ority
and
this
Trib
unal
. Act
iviti
es o
f the
se b
odie
s ar
e
com
plem
enta
ry to
eac
h ot
her s
o as
to e
nsur
e co
here
nt a
nd e
ffici
ent
impl
emen
tatio
n of
the
Con
vent
ion.
The
sam
e is
true
of o
ther
bod
ies
refe
rred
to in
the
Con
vent
ion.
Con
vent
ion
to e
stab
lish
final
and
bin
ding
lim
its o
f its
con
tinen
tal s
helf
is a
key
elem
ent i
n th
e st
ruct
ure
set o
ut in
that
arti
cle.
In o
rder
to re
aliz
e th
is ri
ght,
the
coas
tal S
tate
, pur
suan
t to
artic
le 7
6, p
arag
raph
8, i
s re
quire
d to
sub
mit
info
rmat
ion
on th
e lim
its o
f its
con
tinen
tal s
helf
beyo
nd 2
00 n
mto
the
Com
mis
sion
, who
se m
anda
te is
to m
ake
reco
mm
enda
tions
to th
e co
asta
l
Sta
te o
n m
atte
rs re
late
d to
the
esta
blis
hmen
t of t
he o
uter
lim
its o
f its
cont
inen
tal s
helf.
The
Con
vent
ion
stip
ulat
es in
arti
cle
76, p
arag
raph
8, t
hat t
he
“lim
its o
f the
she
lf es
tabl
ishe
d by
a c
oast
al S
tate
on
the
basi
s of
thes
e
reco
mm
enda
tions
sha
ll be
fina
l and
bin
ding
”.
375.
Thus
, the
Com
mis
sion
pla
ys a
n im
porta
nt ro
le u
nder
the
Con
vent
ion
and
has
a sp
ecia
l exp
ertis
e w
hich
is re
flect
ed in
its
com
posi
tion.
Arti
cle
2 of
Ann
ex II
to th
e C
onve
ntio
n pr
ovid
es th
at th
e C
omm
issi
on s
hall
be c
ompo
sed
of e
xper
ts in
the
field
of g
eolo
gy, g
eoph
ysic
s or
hyd
rogr
aphy
. Arti
cle
3 of
Ann
ex II
to th
e C
onve
ntio
n st
ipul
ates
that
the
func
tions
of t
he C
omm
issi
on
are,
inte
r alia
, to
cons
ider
the
data
and
oth
er m
ater
ial s
ubm
itted
by
coas
tal
Sta
tes
conc
erni
ng th
e ou
ter l
imits
of t
he c
ontin
enta
l she
lf in
are
as w
here
thos
e lim
its e
xten
d be
yond
200
nm
and
to m
ake
reco
mm
enda
tions
in
acco
rdan
ce w
ith a
rticl
e 76
of t
he C
onve
ntio
n.
376.
Ther
e is
a c
lear
dis
tinct
ion
betw
een
the
delim
itatio
n of
the
cont
inen
tal
shel
f und
er a
rticl
e 83
and
the
delin
eatio
n of
its
oute
r lim
its u
nder
arti
cle
76.
Und
er th
e la
tter a
rticl
e,th
e C
omm
issi
on is
ass
igne
d th
e fu
nctio
n of
mak
ing
reco
mm
enda
tions
to c
oast
al S
tate
s on
mat
ters
rela
ting
to th
e es
tabl
ishm
ent o
f
the
oute
r lim
its o
f the
con
tinen
tal s
helf,
but
it do
esso
with
out p
reju
dice
to
delim
itatio
n of
mar
itim
e bo
unda
ries.
The
func
tion
of s
ettli
ng d
ispu
tes
with
resp
ect t
o de
limita
tion
of m
ariti
me
boun
darie
s is
ent
rust
ed to
dis
pute
settl
emen
t pro
cedu
res
unde
r arti
cle
83 a
nd P
art X
V o
f the
Con
vent
ion,
whi
ch
incl
ude
inte
rnat
iona
l cou
rts a
nd tr
ibun
als.
377.
Ther
e is
not
hing
in th
e C
onve
ntio
n or
in th
e R
ules
of P
roce
dure
of t
he
Com
mis
sion
or i
n its
prac
tice
to in
dica
te th
at d
elim
itatio
n of
the
cont
inen
tal
func
tions
.
378.
Arti
cle
76, p
arag
raph
10,
of t
he C
onve
ntio
n st
ates
that
“[t]h
e pr
ovis
ions
of th
is a
rticl
e ar
e w
ithou
t pre
judi
ce to
the
ques
tion
of d
elim
itatio
n of
the
cont
inen
tal s
helf
betw
een
Sta
tes
with
opp
osite
or a
djac
ent c
oast
s”. T
his
is
furth
er c
onfir
med
by
artic
le9
of A
nnex
II,to
the
Con
vent
ion,
whi
ch s
tate
s th
at
the
“act
ions
of t
heC
omm
issi
on s
hall
not p
reju
dice
mat
ters
rela
ting
to
delim
itatio
n of
bou
ndar
ies
betw
een
Sta
tes
with
opp
osite
or a
djac
ent c
oast
s”.
379.
Just
as
the
func
tions
of t
he C
omm
issi
on a
re w
ithou
t pre
judi
ce to
the
ques
tion
of d
elim
itatio
n of
the
cont
inen
tal s
helf
betw
een
Sta
tes
with
opp
osite
or a
djac
ent c
oast
s, s
o th
e ex
erci
se b
y in
tern
atio
nal c
ourts
and
trib
unal
s of
thei
r jur
isdi
ctio
n re
gard
ing
the
delim
itatio
n of
mar
itim
e bo
unda
ries,
incl
udin
g
that
of t
he c
ontin
enta
l she
lf, is
with
out p
reju
dice
to th
e ex
erci
se b
y th
e
Com
mis
sion
of i
ts fu
nctio
ns o
n m
atte
rs re
late
d to
the
delin
eatio
n of
the
oute
r
limits
of t
he c
ontin
enta
l she
lf.
380.
Sev
eral
sub
mis
sion
s m
ade
to th
e C
omm
issi
on, b
egin
ning
with
the
first
subm
issi
on, h
ave
incl
uded
are
as in
resp
ect o
f whi
ch th
ere
was
agr
eem
ent
betw
een
the
Sta
tes
conc
erne
d ef
fect
ing
the
delim
itatio
n of
thei
r con
tinen
tal
shel
fbey
ond
200
nm. H
owev
er, u
nlik
e in
the
pres
ent c
ase,
in a
ll th
ose
situ
atio
ns d
elim
itatio
n ha
s be
en e
ffect
ed b
y ag
reem
ent b
etw
een
Sta
tes,
not
thro
ugh
inte
rnat
iona
l cou
rts a
nd tr
ibun
als.
381.
In th
is re
spec
t, th
e Tr
ibun
al n
otes
the
posi
tions
take
n in
dec
isio
ns b
y
inte
rnat
iona
l cou
rts a
nd tr
ibun
als.
382.
The
Arb
itral
Trib
unal
in th
e A
rbitr
atio
n be
twee
n B
arba
dos
and
the
Rep
ublic
of T
rinid
ad a
nd T
obag
ofo
und
that
its
juris
dict
ion
incl
uded
the
delim
itatio
n of
the
mar
itim
e bo
unda
ry o
f the
con
tinen
tal s
helf
beyo
nd 2
00 n
m
(Dec
isio
n of
11
April
200
6, R
IAA
, Vol
. XX
VII,
p.14
7, a
t p.2
09, p
ara.
217)
.
The
Arb
itral
Trib
unal
, in
that
cas
e, d
id n
ot e
xerc
ise
its ju
risdi
ctio
n st
atin
g th
at:
whi
ch t
he T
ribun
al h
as d
eter
min
ed i
s su
ch t
hat,
as b
etw
een
Barb
ados
and
Trin
idad
and
Tob
ago,
the
re i
s no
sin
gle
mar
itim
e bo
unda
ry b
eyon
d 20
0nm
. (ib
id.,
at p
.242
, par
a.36
8)
383.
In th
eca
se c
once
rnin
gTe
rrito
rial a
nd M
ariti
me
Dis
pute
bet
wee
n
Nic
arag
ua a
nd H
ondu
ras
in th
e C
arib
bean
Sea
(Nic
arag
ua v
.Hon
dura
s),t
he
ICJ
decl
ared
that
:
The
Cou
rt m
ay
acco
rdin
gly,
w
ithou
t sp
ecify
ing
a pr
ecis
e en
dpoi
nt, d
elim
it th
e m
ariti
me
boun
dary
and
sta
te th
at it
ext
ends
be
yond
the
82nd
mer
idia
n w
ithou
t affe
ctin
g th
ird-S
tate
s rig
hts.
It
shou
ld a
lso
be n
oted
in th
is r
egar
d th
at in
no c
ase
may
the
line
be
inte
rpre
ted
as
exte
ndin
g m
ore
than
20
0 [n
m]
from
th
e ba
selin
es
from
w
hich
th
e br
eadt
h of
th
e te
rrito
rial
sea
is
mea
sure
d; a
ny c
laim
of c
ontin
enta
l she
lf rig
hts
beyo
nd 2
00 m
iles
mus
t be
in a
ccor
danc
e w
ith A
rticl
e 76
of U
NC
LOS
and
revi
ewed
by
th
e C
omm
issi
on
on
the
Lim
its
of
the
Con
tinen
tal
Shel
f es
tabl
ishe
d th
ereu
nder
.(J
udgm
ent,
I.C.J
. R
epor
ts 2
007,
p.
659,
at
p.7
59, p
ara.
319)
.
384.
The
Trib
unal
obs
erve
s th
at th
e de
term
inat
ion
of w
heth
er a
n
inte
rnat
iona
l cou
rtor
tribu
nal s
houl
d ex
erci
se it
s ju
risdi
ctio
n de
pend
s on
the
proc
edur
al a
nd s
ubst
antiv
e ci
rcum
stan
ces
of e
ach
case
.
385.
Pur
suan
t to
rule
46
of th
e R
ules
of P
roce
dure
of t
he C
omm
issi
on, i
n
the
even
t tha
tthe
re is
a d
ispu
te in
the
delim
itatio
n of
the
cont
inen
tal s
helf
betw
een
Stat
es w
ith o
ppos
ite o
r adj
acen
t coa
sts,
sub
mis
sion
s to
the
Com
mis
sion
sha
ll be
con
side
red
in a
ccor
danc
e w
ith A
nnex
I to
thos
e R
ules
.
Ann
ex I,
par
agra
ph 2
, pro
vide
s:
In c
ase
ther
e is
a d
ispu
te i
n th
e de
limita
tion
of t
he c
ontin
enta
l sh
elf
betw
een
oppo
site
or
adja
cent
Sta
tes,
or
in o
ther
cas
es o
f un
reso
lved
land
or
mar
itim
e di
sput
es,
rela
ted
to t
he s
ubm
issi
on,
the
Com
mis
sion
sha
ll be
:
(a)
Info
rmed
of s
uch
disp
utes
by
the
coas
tal S
tate
s m
akin
g th
e su
bmis
sion
; and
(b)
Assu
red
by t
he c
oast
al S
tate
s m
akin
g th
e su
bmis
sion
to
the
exte
nt p
ossi
ble
that
the
subm
issi
on w
ill no
t pr
ejud
ice
mat
ters
re
latin
g to
the
delim
itatio
n of
bou
ndar
ies
betw
een
Stat
es.
386.
Par
agra
ph 5
(a) o
f Ann
ex I
to th
e sa
me
Rul
es fu
rther
pro
vide
s:
5. (
a) I
n ca
ses
whe
re a
lan
d or
mar
itim
e di
sput
e ex
ists
, th
e C
omm
issi
on s
hall
not c
onsi
der
and
qual
ify a
sub
mis
sion
mad
e by
an
y of
th
e St
ates
co
ncer
ned
in
the
disp
ute.
H
owev
er,
the
Com
mis
sion
may
con
side
r on
e or
mor
e su
bmis
sion
s in
the
area
s un
der
disp
ute
with
prio
r co
nsen
t gi
ven
by a
ll St
ates
tha
t ar
e pa
rties
to s
uch
a di
sput
e.
387.
In th
e pr
esen
t cas
e, B
angl
ades
h in
form
ed th
e C
omm
issi
on b
y a
note
verb
ale
date
d 23
Jul
y 20
09, a
ddre
ssed
to th
e S
ecre
tary
-Gen
eral
of t
he U
nite
d
Nat
ions
, tha
t, fo
r the
pur
pose
s of
rule
46
of th
e R
ules
of P
roce
dure
of t
he
Com
mis
sion
, and
of A
nnex
I th
eret
o, th
ere
was
a d
ispu
te b
etw
een
the
Parti
es
and,
reca
lling
para
grap
h5
(a) o
f Ann
ex I
to th
e R
ules
, obs
erve
d th
at:
give
n th
e pr
esen
ce
of
a di
sput
e be
twee
n Ba
ngla
desh
an
d M
yanm
ar c
once
rnin
g en
title
men
t to
the
par
ts o
f th
e co
ntin
enta
l sh
elf i
n th
e Ba
y of
Ben
gal c
laim
ed b
y M
yanm
ar in
its
subm
issi
on,
the
Com
mis
sion
may
not
“co
nsid
er a
nd q
ualif
y” t
he s
ubm
issi
on
mad
e by
Mya
nmar
with
out
the
“prio
r co
nsen
t gi
ven
by a
ll St
ates
th
at a
re p
artie
s to
suc
h a
disp
ute”
.
388.
Taki
ng in
to a
ccou
nt B
angl
ades
h’s
posi
tion,
the
Com
mis
sion
has
defe
rred
cons
ider
atio
n of
the
subm
issi
on m
ade
by M
yanm
ar(S
tate
men
t by
the
Cha
irman
of t
he C
omm
issi
on o
n th
e pr
ogre
ss o
f wor
k in
the
Com
mis
sion
,
CLC
S/6
4 of
1 O
ctob
er 2
009,
p. 1
0, p
arag
raph
40)
389.
The
Com
mis
sion
als
o de
cide
d to
def
er th
e co
nsid
erat
ion
of th
e
subm
issi
on o
f Ban
glad
esh,
in o
rder
to ta
ke in
to a
ccou
nt a
ny fu
rther
dev
elop
men
ts th
at m
ight
oc
cur i
n th
e in
terv
enin
g pe
riod,
dur
ing
whi
ch th
e St
ates
con
cern
ed
mig
ht w
ish
to t
ake
adva
ntag
e of
the
ave
nues
ava
ilabl
e to
the
m,
incl
udin
g pr
ovis
iona
l ar
rang
emen
ts
of
a pr
actic
al
natu
re
as
outli
ned
in a
nnex
I t
o th
e ru
les
of p
roce
dure
. (S
tate
men
t by
the
C
hairm
an o
f th
e C
omm
issi
on o
n th
e pr
ogre
ss o
f w
ork
in t
he
Com
mis
sion
, CLC
S/72
of 1
6 Se
ptem
ber 2
011,
p.7
, par
agra
ph 2
2)
390.
The
cons
eque
nce
of th
ese
deci
sion
sof
the
Com
mis
sion
is th
at, i
f the
Trib
unal
dec
lines
to d
elim
it th
e co
ntin
enta
l she
lf be
yond
200
nm
unde
r
artic
le83
of t
he C
onve
ntio
n, th
e is
sue
conc
erni
ng th
e es
tabl
ishm
ent o
f the
oute
r lim
its o
f the
con
tinen
tal s
helf
of e
ach
of th
e Pa
rties
und
er a
rticl
e 76
of
the
Con
vent
ion
may
rem
ain
unre
solv
ed. T
he T
ribun
al n
otes
that
the
reco
rd in
on o
ther
ave
nues
ava
ilabl
e to
them
so
long
as
thei
r del
imita
tion
disp
ute
is n
ot
settl
ed.
391.
A d
ecis
ion
by th
e Tr
ibun
al n
ot to
exe
rcis
e its
juris
dict
ion
over
the
disp
ute
rela
ting
to th
e co
ntin
enta
l she
lf be
yond
200
nm
wou
ld n
ot o
nly
fail
to
reso
lve
a lo
ng-s
tand
ing
disp
ute,
but
als
o w
ould
not
be
cond
uciv
e to
the
effic
ient
ope
ratio
n of
the
Con
vent
ion.
392.
In th
e vi
ew o
f the
Trib
unal
, it w
ould
be
cont
rary
to th
e ob
ject
and
purp
ose
of th
e C
onve
ntio
n no
t to
reso
lve
the
exis
ting
impa
sse.
Inac
tion
in th
e
pres
ent c
ase,
by
the
Com
mis
sion
and
the
Trib
unal
, tw
o or
gans
cre
ated
by
the
Con
vent
ion
to e
nsur
e th
e ef
fect
ive
impl
emen
tatio
n of
its
prov
isio
ns, w
ould
leav
e th
eP
artie
s in
a p
ositi
on w
here
they
may
be
unab
le to
ben
efit
fully
from
thei
r rig
hts
over
the
cont
inen
tal s
helf.
393.
The
Trib
unal
obs
erve
sth
at th
e ex
erci
se o
f its
juris
dict
ion
in th
e pr
esen
t
case
cann
ot b
e se
en a
s an
enc
roac
hmen
t on
the
func
tions
of t
he
Com
mis
sion
, ina
smuc
h as
the
settl
emen
t, th
roug
h ne
gotia
tions
, of d
ispu
tes
betw
een
Stat
es re
gard
ing
delim
itatio
n of
the
cont
inen
tal s
helf
beyo
nd 2
00nm
is n
ot s
een
as p
recl
udin
g ex
amin
atio
n by
the
Com
mis
sion
of th
e su
bmis
sion
s
mad
e to
it o
r hin
derin
g it
from
issu
ing
appr
opria
te re
com
men
datio
ns.
394.
For t
he fo
rego
ing
reas
ons,
the
Trib
unal
con
clud
es th
at, i
n or
der t
o fu
lfil
its re
spon
sibi
litie
s un
der P
art X
V, S
ectio
n 2,
of t
he C
onve
ntio
n in
the
pres
ent
case
, it h
as a
n ob
ligat
ion
to a
djud
icat
e th
e di
sput
e an
d to
del
imit
the
cont
inen
tal s
helf
betw
een
the
Parti
es b
eyon
d 20
0 nm
. Suc
h de
limita
tion
is
with
out p
reju
dice
to th
e es
tabl
ishm
ent o
f the
out
er li
mits
of t
he c
ontin
enta
l
shel
f in
acco
rdan
ce w
ith a
rticl
e 76
, par
agra
ph 8
, of t
he C
onve
ntio
n.
Mya
nmar
hav
e en
title
men
ts to
a c
ontin
enta
l she
lfex
tend
ing
beyo
nd 2
00 n
m.
The
subm
issi
ons
of B
angl
ades
h an
d M
yanm
ar to
the
Com
mis
sion
cle
arly
indi
cate
that
thei
r ent
itlem
ents
ove
rlap
in th
e ar
ea in
dis
pute
in th
is c
ase.
Del
imita
tion
of th
e co
ntin
enta
l she
lf be
yond
200
nau
tical
mile
s
450.
The
Trib
unal
will
now
proc
eed
to d
elim
it th
e co
ntin
enta
l she
lf be
yond
200
nm. I
t will
turn
firs
t to
the
ques
tion
of th
e ap
plic
able
law
and
del
imita
tion
met
hod.
451.
In th
is c
onte
xt, t
he T
ribun
al re
ques
ted
the
Par
ties
to a
ddre
ss th
e
follo
win
g qu
estio
n: “W
ithou
t pre
judi
ce to
the
ques
tion
whe
ther
the
Trib
unal
has
juris
dict
ion
to d
elim
it th
e co
ntin
enta
l she
lf be
yond
200
[nm
], w
ould
the
Par
ties
expa
nd o
n th
eir v
iew
s w
ith re
spec
t of t
he d
elim
itatio
n of
the
cont
inen
tal s
helf
beyo
nd 2
00[n
m]?
”
452.
In re
spon
se, B
angl
ades
h po
ints
out
that
arti
cle
83 o
f the
Con
vent
ion
does
not
dis
tingu
ish
betw
een
delim
itatio
n of
the
cont
inen
tal s
helf
beyo
nd
200
nman
d w
ithin
200
nm
. Acc
ordi
ng to
Ban
glad
esh,
the
obje
ctiv
e of
delim
itatio
n in
bot
h ca
ses
is to
ach
ieve
an
equi
tabl
e so
lutio
n. T
he m
erits
of
any
met
hod
of d
elim
itatio
n in
this
con
text
, in
Ban
glad
esh’
s vi
ew, c
an o
nly
be
judg
ed o
n a
case
-by-
case
bas
is.
453.
Mya
nmar
also
argu
es th
at th
e ru
les
and
met
hodo
logi
es fo
r del
imita
tion
beyo
nd 2
00nm
are
the
sam
e as
thos
e w
ithin
200
nm
. Acc
ordi
ng to
Mya
nmar
,
“not
hing
eith
er in
UN
CLO
S o
r in
cust
omar
y in
tern
atio
nal l
aw h
ints
at t
he
slig
htes
t diff
eren
ce b
etw
een
the
rule
of d
elim
itatio
n ap
plic
able
in th
e […
]
area
s” b
eyon
d an
d w
ithin
200
nm.
454.
The
Trib
unal
not
es th
at a
rticl
e 83
of t
he C
onve
ntio
n ad
dres
ses
the
delim
itatio
n of
the
cont
inen
tal s
helf
betw
een
Stat
es w
ith o
ppos
ite o
r adj
acen
t
coas
tsw
ithou
t any
lim
itatio
n as
to a
rea.
It c
onta
ins
no re
fere
nce
to th
e lim
its
set f
orth
in a
rticl
e 76
, par
agra
ph 1
, of t
he C
onve
ntio
n.A
rticl
e 83
appl
ies
200
nm.
455.
In th
e vi
ew o
f the
Trib
unal
, the
del
imita
tion
met
hod
to b
e em
ploy
ed in
the
pres
ent c
ase
for t
he c
ontin
enta
l she
lf be
yond
200
nau
tical
mile
s sh
ould
not d
iffer
from
that
with
in 2
00 n
m. A
ccor
ding
ly, t
he e
quid
ista
nce/
rele
vant
circ
umst
ance
s m
etho
d co
ntin
ues
to a
pply
for t
he d
elim
itatio
n of
the
cont
inen
tal s
helf
beyo
nd 2
00 n
m.T
his
met
hod
is ro
oted
in th
e re
cogn
ition
that
sove
reig
nty
over
the
land
terri
tory
is th
e ba
sis
for t
he s
over
eign
righ
ts a
nd
juris
dict
ion
of th
e co
asta
l Sta
te w
ith re
spec
t to
both
the
excl
usiv
e ec
onom
ic
zone
and
the
cont
inen
tal s
helf.
Thi
s sh
ould
be
dist
ingu
ishe
d fro
m th
e qu
estio
n
of th
e ob
ject
and
ext
ent o
f tho
se ri
ghts
, be
it th
e na
ture
of t
he a
reas
to w
hich
thos
e rig
hts
appl
y or
the
max
imum
sea
war
d lim
its s
peci
fied
in a
rticl
es 5
7 an
d
76of
the
Con
vent
ion.
The
Trib
unal
not
es in
this
resp
ect t
hat t
his
met
hod
can,
and
does
in th
is c
ase,
per
mit
reso
lutio
n al
sobe
yond
200
nm
of t
he p
robl
em o
f
the
cut-o
ff ef
fect
that
can
be
crea
ted
by a
n eq
uidi
stan
ce li
ne w
here
the
coas
t
of o
ne p
arty
is m
arke
dly
conc
ave
(see
par
agra
phs
290-
291)
.
456.
The
Trib
unal
will
acco
rdin
gly
proc
eed
to re
-exa
min
e th
e qu
estio
n of
rele
vant
circ
umst
ance
s in
this
par
ticul
ar c
onte
xt.
457.
Ban
glad
esh
cont
ends
that
the
rele
vant
circ
umst
ance
s in
the
delim
itatio
n of
the
cont
inen
tal s
helf
beyo
nd 2
00nm
incl
ude
the
geol
ogy
and
geom
orph
olog
y of
the
seab
ed a
nd s
ubso
il, b
ecau
se e
ntitl
emen
t bey
ond
200
nmde
pend
s en
tirel
y on
nat
ural
pro
long
atio
n w
hile
with
in 2
00 n
mit
is
base
d on
dis
tanc
e fro
m th
e co
ast.
Acc
ordi
ng to
Ban
glad
esh,
its
entit
lem
ent t
o
the
cont
inen
tal s
helf
beyo
nd 2
00 n
m“re
sts
firm
ly” o
n th
e ge
olog
ical
and
geom
orph
olog
ical
con
tinui
ty b
etw
een
its la
nd te
rrito
ry a
nd th
e en
tire
seab
ed
of th
e Ba
y of
Ben
gal.
Bang
lade
sh s
tate
s th
atM
yanm
ar “a
t bes
t enj
oys
only
geom
orph
olog
ical
con
tinui
ty b
etw
een
its o
wn
land
mas
s an
d th
e ou
ter
cont
inen
tal s
helf”
. In
Bang
lade
sh’s
vie
w, t
here
fore
,“an
equ
itabl
e de
limita
tion
cons
iste
nt w
ith a
rticl
e 83
mus
t nec
essa
rily
take
full
acco
unt o
f the
fact
that
Ban
glad
esh
has
the
mos
t nat
ural
pro
long
atio
n in
to th
e B
ay o
f Ben
gal,
and
that
Mya
nmar
has
littl
e or
no
natu
ral p
rolo
ngat
ion
beyo
nd 2
00” n
m.
458.
Ano
ther
rele
vant
circ
umst
ance
indi
cate
d by
Ban
glad
esh
is “t
he
cont
inui
ng e
ffect
of B
angl
ades
h’s
conc
ave
coas
t and
the
cut-o
ff ef
fect
gene
rate
d by
Mya
nmar
’s e
quid
ista
nce
line,
or b
y an
y ot
her v
ersi
on o
f an
equi
dist
ance
line
”. A
ccor
ding
to B
angl
ades
h, “[
t]he
farth
er a
n eq
uidi
stan
ce o
r
even
a m
odifi
ed e
quid
ista
nce
line
exte
nds
from
a c
onca
ve c
oast
, the
mor
e it
cuts
acr
oss
that
coa
st, c
ontin
ually
nar
row
ing
the
wed
ge o
f sea
in fr
ont o
f it”.
459.
Giv
en it
s po
sitio
n th
at B
angl
ades
h’s
cont
inen
tal s
helf
does
not
ext
end
beyo
nd 2
00 n
m, M
yanm
ar d
id n
ot p
rese
nt a
rgum
ents
rega
rdin
g th
e ex
iste
nce
of re
leva
nt c
ircum
stan
ces
rela
ting
to th
e de
limita
tion
of th
e co
ntin
enta
l she
lf
beyo
nd 2
00 n
m.T
he T
ribun
al o
bser
ves
that
Mya
nmar
sta
ted
that
ther
e ar
e no
rele
vant
circ
umst
ance
s re
quiri
ng a
shi
ft of
the
prov
isio
nal e
quid
ista
nce
line
in
the
cont
ext o
f the
del
imita
tion
of th
e co
ntin
enta
l she
lf w
ithin
200
nm
.
460.
The
Trib
unal
is o
f the
vie
w th
at “t
he m
ost n
atur
al p
rolo
ngat
ion”
argu
men
t mad
e by
Ban
glad
esh
has
no re
leva
nce
to th
e pr
esen
t cas
e. T
he
Trib
unal
has
alre
ady
dete
rmin
edth
at n
atur
al p
rolo
ngat
ion
is n
ot a
n
inde
pend
ent b
asis
for e
ntitl
emen
t and
sho
uld
be in
terp
rete
d in
the
cont
ext o
f
the
subs
eque
nt p
rovi
sion
s of
arti
cle
76of
the
Con
vent
ion,
in p
artic
ular
para
grap
h4
ther
eof.
The
Trib
unal
has
det
erm
ined
that
bot
h P
artie
s ha
ve
entit
lem
ents
to a
con
tinen
tal s
helf
beyo
nd 2
00 n
min
acc
orda
nce
with
artic
le76
and
has
deci
ded
that
thos
e en
title
men
ts o
verla
p.Th
e Tr
ibun
al
ther
efor
e ca
nnot
acc
ept t
he a
rgum
ent o
f Ban
glad
esh
that
, wer
e th
e Tr
ibun
al
to d
ecid
e th
at M
yanm
ar is
ent
itled
to a
con
tinen
tal s
helf
beyo
nd 2
00nm
,
Ban
glad
esh
wou
ld b
e en
title
d to
a g
reat
er p
ortio
n of
the
disp
uted
are
a
beca
use
it ha
s “th
e m
ost n
atur
al p
rolo
ngat
ion”
.
Del
imita
tion
line
461.
Hav
ing
cons
ider
ed th
e co
ncav
ity o
f the
Ban
glad
esh
coas
t to
be a
rele
vant
circ
umst
ance
for t
he p
urpo
se o
f del
imiti
ng th
e ex
clus
ive
econ
omic
zone
and
the
cont
inen
tal s
helf
with
in 2
00 n
m, t
he T
ribun
al fi
nds
that
this
rele
vant
circ
umst
ance
has
a c
ontin
uing
effe
ct b
eyon
d 20
0 nm
.
462.
The
Trib
unal
ther
efor
e de
cide
s th
at th
ead
just
ed e
quid
ista
nce
line
delim
iting
bot
h th
e ex
clus
ive
econ
omic
zon
ean
d th
e co
ntin
enta
l she
lf w
ithin
200
nmbe
twee
n th
e Pa
rties
as
refe
rred
to in
par
agra
phs
337-
340
cont
inue
s
in th
e sa
me
dire
ctio
n be
yond
the
200
nmlim
it of
Ban
glad
esh
until
it re
ache
s
the
area
whe
re th
e rig
hts
of th
ird S
tate
sm
ay b
e af
fect
ed.
“Gre
y ar
ea”
463.
The
delim
itatio
n of
the
cont
inen
tal s
helf
beyo
nd 2
00 n
mgi
ves
rise
toan
area
of l
imite
d si
ze lo
cate
d be
yond
200
nm
from
the
coas
t of B
angl
ades
h bu
t
with
in 2
00 n
mfro
m th
e co
ast o
f Mya
nmar
, yet
on
the
Ban
glad
esh
side
of t
he
delim
itatio
n lin
e.
464.
Suc
h an
are
a re
sults
whe
n a
delim
itatio
n lin
e w
hich
is n
ot a
n
equi
dist
ance
line
reac
hes
the
oute
r lim
it of
one
Sta
te’s
exc
lusi
ve e
cono
mic
zone
and
con
tinue
s be
yond
it in
the
sam
e di
rect
ion,
unt
ilit
reac
hes
the
oute
r
limit
of th
e ot
her S
tate
’sex
clus
ive
econ
omic
zon
e. In
the
pres
ent c
ase,
the
area
,ref
erre
d to
by
the
Par
ties
as a
“gre
y ar
ea”,
occu
rs w
here
the
adju
sted
equi
dist
ance
line
use
d fo
r del
imita
tion
of th
e co
ntin
enta
l she
lf go
es b
eyon
d
200
nmof
f Ban
glad
esh
and
cont
inue
s un
til it
reac
hes
200
nmof
f Mya
nmar
.
465.
The
Parti
es d
iffer
on
the
stat
us a
nd tr
eatm
ent o
f the
abo
ve-m
entio
ned
“gre
y ar
ea”.
For B
angl
ades
h, th
is p
robl
em c
anno
t be
a re
ason
for a
dher
ing
to
an e
quid
ista
nce
line,
nor
can
it b
e re
solv
ed b
y gi
ving
prio
rity
to th
e ex
clus
ive
econ
omic
zon
e ov
er th
e co
ntin
enta
l she
lf or
by
allo
catin
g w
ater
col
umn
right
s
over
that
are
a to
Mya
nmar
and
con
tinen
tal s
helf
right
s to
Ban
glad
esh.
466.
Ban
glad
esh
argu
es th
at th
ere
is n
o te
xtua
l bas
is in
the
Con
vent
ion
to
conc
lude
that
one
Sta
te’s
ent
itlem
ent w
ithin
200
nm
will
inev
itabl
y tru
mp
anot
her S
tate
’s e
ntitl
emen
t in
the
cont
inen
tal s
helf
beyo
nd 2
00 n
m.
Ban
glad
esh
finds
it im
poss
ible
to d
efen
d a
prop
ositi
on th
at e
ven
a “s
liver
” of
excl
usiv
e ec
onom
ic z
one
of o
ne S
tate
bey
ond
the
oute
r lim
it of
ano
ther
Sta
te’s
exc
lusi
ve e
cono
mic
zon
e pu
ts a
n en
d by
ope
ratio
n of
law
to th
e
beyo
nd 2
00nm
unde
r arti
cle
76 o
f the
Con
vent
ion.
For
Ban
glad
esh,
it c
anno
t
be th
e ca
se th
at:
a St
ate
with
a c
lear
and
und
ispu
tabl
e po
tent
ial e
ntitl
emen
t in
the
cont
inen
tal s
helf
beyo
nd 2
00 m
iles
shou
ld f
or e
ver
be p
rohi
bite
d fro
m r
each
ing
that
ent
itlem
ent s
olel
y by
virt
ue o
f the
geo
grap
hica
l ha
ppen
stan
ce th
at it
is lo
cate
d in
a c
onca
vity
and
ther
eis
a s
light
w
edge
of
pote
ntia
l EE
Z se
para
ting
it fro
m t
he o
uter
con
tinen
tal
shel
f.
467.
As
for d
iffer
entia
ting
wat
er-c
olum
n rig
hts
and
cont
inen
tal-s
helf
right
s,in
Ban
glad
esh’
s vi
ew, t
here
is n
o te
xtua
l bas
is in
the
Con
vent
ion
and
such
solu
tion
coul
d ca
use
grea
t pra
ctic
al in
conv
enie
nce.
Acc
ordi
ng to
Ban
glad
esh,
“[t]h
is is
why
inte
rnat
iona
l trib
unal
s ha
ve s
ough
t at a
ll co
st to
avo
id th
e
prob
lem
and
why
diff
eren
tial a
ttrib
utio
n of
zon
e an
dsh
elf h
as h
ardl
y ev
er
been
ado
pted
in S
tate
pra
ctic
e”.
468.
Mya
nmar
cont
ends
that
“[a]
ny a
lloca
tion
of a
rea
to B
angl
ades
h
exte
ndin
g be
yond
200
[nm
]off
Ban
glad
esh’
s co
ast,
wou
ld tr
ump
Mya
nmar
’s
right
s to
EE
Z an
d co
ntin
enta
l she
lf w
ithin
200
[nm
]”. A
ccor
ding
to M
yanm
ar,
“[t]o
adv
ance
a v
ery
hypo
thet
ical
cla
im to
the
cont
inen
tal s
helf
beyo
nd
200
[nm
]aga
inst
the
sove
reig
n rig
hts
enjo
yed
by M
yanm
ar a
utom
atic
ally
unde
r arti
cle
77 o
f the
Con
vent
ion
with
resp
ect t
o its
con
tinen
tal s
helf
with
in
this
dis
tanc
e, a
nd a
gain
st M
yanm
ar’s
righ
t to
exte
nd it
s ex
clus
ive
econ
omic
zone
”up
to th
is li
mit,
wou
ld b
e co
ntra
ry to
bot
h th
e C
onve
ntio
n an
d
inte
rnat
iona
l pra
ctic
e.
469.
Mya
nmar
als
o po
ints
out
that
the
Arb
itral
Trib
unal
in th
e A
rbitr
atio
n
betw
een
Barb
ados
and
Trin
idad
and
Tob
ago
ende
d a
mar
itim
e bo
unda
ry a
t
the
200
nmlim
it of
Trin
idad
and
Tob
ago,
thus
mak
ing
clea
r tha
t Trin
idad
and
Toba
go h
ad n
o ac
cess
to th
e co
ntin
enta
l she
lf be
yond
200
nm. T
here
fore
, in
Mya
nmar
’s v
iew
, “th
e ex
tens
ion
of th
e de
limita
tion
beyo
nd 2
00[n
m]w
ould
inev
itabl
y in
fring
e on
Mya
nmar
’s in
disp
utab
le ri
ghts
”.Th
is w
ould
then
prec
lude
any
righ
t of B
angl
ades
h to
the
cont
inen
tal s
helf
beyo
nd 2
00 n
m.
470.
Mya
nmar
con
clud
es th
at w
hile
the
solu
tion
subm
itted
by
Ban
glad
esh
is
unte
nabl
e, th
e pr
oble
m o
f a “g
rey
area
” doe
s no
t aris
e in
the
pres
ent c
ase,
beca
use
equi
tabl
e de
limita
tion
does
not
ext
end
beyo
nd 2
00 n
m.
* *
*
471.
The
Trib
unal
not
es th
at th
e bo
unda
ry d
elim
iting
the
area
bey
ond
200
nmfro
m B
angl
ades
h bu
t with
in 2
00 n
mof
Mya
nmar
is a
bou
ndar
y
delim
iting
the
cont
inen
tal s
helv
es o
f the
Par
ties,
sin
ce in
this
are
a on
ly th
eir
cont
inen
tal s
helv
es o
verla
p. T
here
is n
o qu
estio
n of
del
imiti
ng th
e ex
clus
ive
econ
omic
zon
es o
f the
Par
ties
as th
ere
is n
o ov
erla
p of
thos
ezo
nes.
472.
The
grey
are
a ar
ises
as
a co
nseq
uenc
e of
del
imita
tion.
Any
delim
itatio
n m
ay g
ive
rise
to c
ompl
ex le
gal a
nd p
ract
ical
pro
blem
s, s
uch
as
thos
e in
volv
ing
trans
boun
dary
reso
urce
s. It
is n
ot u
nusu
al in
suc
h ca
ses
for
Sta
tes
to e
nter
into
agr
eem
ents
or c
oope
rativ
e ar
rang
emen
ts to
dea
l with
prob
lem
s re
sulti
ng fr
om th
e de
limita
tion.
473.
The
Trib
unal
not
es th
at a
rticl
e 56
, par
agra
ph 3
, of t
he C
onve
ntio
n,
prov
ides
that
the
right
s of
the
coas
tal S
tate
with
resp
ect t
o th
e se
abed
and
subs
oil o
f the
exc
lusi
ve e
cono
mic
zon
e sh
all b
e ex
erci
sed
in a
ccor
danc
e w
ith
Par
t VIo
f the
Con
vent
ion,
whi
chin
clud
es a
rticl
e 83
. The
Trib
unal
furth
er
note
s th
at a
rticl
e 68
pro
vide
s th
at P
art V
on
the
excl
usiv
e ec
onom
ic z
one
does
not
app
ly to
sed
enta
ry s
peci
es o
f the
con
tinen
tal s
helf
as d
efin
ed in
artic
le 7
7 of
the
Con
vent
ion.
474.
Acc
ordi
ngly
, in
the
area
bey
ond
Ban
glad
esh’
s ex
clus
ive
econ
omic
zone
that
is w
ithin
the
limits
of M
yanm
ar’s
exc
lusi
ve e
cono
mic
zon
e, th
e
mar
itim
e bo
unda
ry d
elim
its th
e Pa
rties
’ rig
hts
with
resp
ect t
oth
e se
abed
and
subs
oil o
f the
con
tinen
tal s
helf
but d
oes
not o
ther
wis
e lim
it M
yanm
ar’s
righ
ts
with
resp
ect t
o th
e ex
clus
ive
econ
omic
zon
e, n
otab
ly th
ose
with
resp
ect t
o th
e
supe
rjace
nt w
ater
s.
cont
inen
tal s
helf
has
alw
ays
coex
iste
d w
ith a
noth
er le
gal r
egim
e in
the
sam
e
area
. Ini
tially
that
oth
er re
gim
e w
as th
at o
f the
hig
h se
as a
nd th
e ot
her S
tate
s
conc
erne
d w
ere
thos
e ex
erci
sing
hig
h se
as fr
eedo
ms.
Und
er th
e C
onve
ntio
n,
as a
resu
lt of
mar
itim
e de
limita
tion,
ther
e m
ay a
lso
be c
oncu
rrent
exc
lusi
ve
econ
omic
zon
e rig
hts
of a
noth
er c
oast
al S
tate
. In
such
a s
ituat
ion,
pur
suan
t to
the
prin
cipl
e re
flect
ed in
the
prov
isio
ns o
f arti
cles
56,
58,
78
and
79 a
nd in
othe
r pro
visi
ons
of th
e C
onve
ntio
n, e
ach
coas
tal S
tate
mus
t exe
rcis
e its
righ
ts
and
perfo
rm it
s du
ties
with
due
rega
rd to
the
right
s an
d du
ties
of th
e ot
her.
476.
Ther
e ar
e m
any
way
s in
whi
ch th
e P
artie
s m
ay e
nsur
e th
e di
scha
rge
of
thei
r obl
igat
ions
in th
is re
spec
t, in
clud
ing
the
conc
lusi
on o
f spe
cific
agre
emen
ts o
r the
est
ablis
hmen
t of a
ppro
pria
te c
oope
rativ
e ar
rang
emen
ts. I
t
is fo
r the
Par
ties
to d
eter
min
e th
e m
easu
res
that
they
con
side
r app
ropr
iate
for
this
pur
pose
.
477.
Hav
ing
reac
hed
the
third
sta
ge in
the
delim
itatio
n pr
oces
sas
refe
rred
to in
par
agra
ph 2
40, t
he T
ribun
al w
ill, fo
r thi
s pu
rpos
e, fi
rst d
eter
min
e th
e
rele
vant
are
a, n
amel
y th
e ar
ea o
f ove
rlapp
ing
entit
lem
ents
of t
he P
artie
s th
at
is re
leva
nt to
this
del
imita
tion.
The
Trib
unal
not
es in
this
rega
rd th
at
mat
hem
atic
al p
reci
sion
is n
ot re
quire
d in
the
calc
ulat
ion
of e
ither
the
rele
vant
coas
ts o
r the
rele
vant
are
a.
478.
Ban
glad
esh
mai
ntai
ns th
at th
e re
leva
nt a
rea
incl
udes
the
mar
itim
e
spac
e “s
ituat
ed in
the
coas
tal f
ront
s [o
f the
two
Par
ties]
and
exte
ndin
g ou
t to
the
200
[nm
]”.
479.
Ban
glad
esh
reca
lls th
at it
s m
odel
of t
he re
leva
nt a
rea
does
not
incl
ude
mar
itim
e sp
aces
land
war
d of
the
Par
ties’
coa
stal
faça
des
but n
otes
that
eve
n
if th
ose
area
s w
ere
incl
uded
they
wou
ld n
ot m
ake
a m
ater
ial d
iffer
ence
to th
e
prop
ortio
nalit
y ca
lcul
atio
n.
480.
In d
eter
min
ing
the
rele
vant
are
a, B
angl
ades
h ex
clud
es th
e ar
eas
clai
med
by
third
Sta
tes.
Acc
ordi
ng to
Ban
glad
esh,
“[i]t
can
not b
e rig
ht to
cre
dit
Ban
glad
esh
for m
ariti
me
spac
es th
at a
re s
ubje
ct to
an
activ
e cl
aim
by
a th
ird
Sta
te”.
Ban
glad
esh
caut
ions
that
“[t]o
incl
ude
thos
e ar
eas
in th
e
prop
ortio
nalit
y ca
lcul
atio
ns w
ould
hav
e a
dram
atic
effe
ct o
n th
e nu
mbe
rs th
at
dist
orts
real
ity”.
Ban
glad
esh
ther
efor
e su
bmits
that
are
as o
n th
e “In
dian
sid
e”
of In
dia’
s cl
aim
are
not
rele
vant
in th
e pr
esen
t cas
e.
481.
Ban
glad
esh
subm
its th
at “i
t is
not a
ppro
pria
te to
trea
t as
rele
vant
the
mar
itim
e ar
eas
lyin
g of
f Mya
nmar
’s c
oast
bet
wee
n B
hiff
Cap
e an
d C
ape
Neg
rais
.[…
] It w
ould
be
inco
ngru
ous
to c
onsi
der a
s re
leva
nt th
e m
ariti
me
spac
es a
djac
ent t
o an
irre
leva
nt c
oast
”.
482.
Acc
ordi
ng to
Ban
glad
esh,
the
rele
vant
are
a m
easu
res
175,
326.
8sq
uare
kilo
met
res.
On
the
basi
s of
a d
iffer
ent c
alcu
latio
n of
the
kilo
met
res.
483.
Mya
nmar
ass
erts
that
the
rele
vant
mar
itim
e ar
ea is
dep
ende
nt o
n th
e
rele
vant
coa
sts
and
the
proj
ectio
ns o
f the
se c
oast
s, in
sofa
r as
they
ove
rlap.
It
desc
ribes
the
rele
vant
are
aas
follo
ws:
(i) to
the
north
and
to th
e ea
st, i
t inc
lude
s al
l mar
itim
e pr
ojec
tions
fro
m
Bang
lade
sh’s
re
leva
nt
coas
ts,
exce
pt
the
area
w
here
Ba
ngla
desh
coa
sts
face
eac
h ot
her
(the
trian
gle
betw
een
the
seco
nd a
nd th
e th
ird s
egm
ents
);
(ii) t
o th
e ea
st a
nd to
the
sout
h, it
incl
udes
all
mar
itim
e pr
ojec
tions
fro
m
Mya
nmar
’s
Rak
hine
(A
raka
n)
coas
t, as
fa
r as
th
ese
proj
ectio
ns o
verla
p w
ith B
angl
ades
h’s;
(iii)
to t
he w
est,
it ex
tend
s th
ese
mar
itim
e pr
ojec
tions
up
to t
he
poin
t the
y ov
erla
p.
484.
Mya
nmar
sub
mits
that
Ban
glad
esh
has
inco
rrect
ly p
ortra
yed
the
rele
vant
are
a. It
asse
rts th
at in
fact
“the
rele
vant
are
a co
nsis
ts o
f the
mar
itim
e
area
gen
erat
ed b
y th
e pr
ojec
tions
of B
angl
ades
h’s
rele
vant
coa
sts
and
Mya
nmar
’s re
leva
nt c
oast
”.
485.
Mya
nmar
sta
tes
that
ther
e ar
e tw
o is
sues
in re
latio
n to
whi
ch th
e
Par
ties
are
not i
n ag
reem
ent.
One
of t
hese
issu
es c
once
rns
the
exac
t ext
ent
of th
e re
leva
nt a
rea
on th
e In
dian
sid
e of
Indi
a’s
clai
m. T
he o
ther
issu
e
conc
erns
the
rele
vanc
eof
the
sout
hern
par
t of t
he c
oast
of R
akhi
ne.
486.
Mya
nmar
dis
agre
es w
ith B
angl
ades
h’s
cont
entio
n th
at th
e ar
eas
on th
e
Indi
an s
ide
of In
dia’
s cl
aim
are
not
rele
vant
in th
e pr
esen
t cas
e.A
ccor
ding
to
Mya
nmar
, Ban
glad
esh,
in n
ot in
clud
ing
thes
e ar
eas,
noto
nly
excl
uded
a
mar
itim
e ar
ea o
f mor
e th
an 1
1,00
0sq
uare
kilo
met
res,
but
als
o m
ade
the
delim
itatio
n be
twee
n Ba
ngla
desh
and
Mya
nmar
dep
ende
nt o
n th
e cl
aim
s of
a
third
Sta
te, c
laim
s th
at a
re –
acco
rdin
g to
Ban
glad
esh
–ch
angi
ng a
nd in
no
way
est
ablis
hed
in la
w o
r in
fact
. For
this
reas
on, M
yanm
ar is
of t
he v
iew
that
thes
e ar
eas
shou
ld b
e in
clud
ed in
the
rele
vant
are
a up
to th
e eq
uidi
stan
ce li
ne
betw
een
the
coas
ts o
f Ban
glad
esh
and
Indi
a.
487.
Con
cern
ing
the
sout
hern
par
t of t
he c
oast
of R
akhi
ne, M
yanm
ar a
rgue
s
that
Ban
glad
esh
also
fails
to ta
ke in
to a
ccou
nt th
e so
uth
coas
t of M
yanm
ar
whi
ch e
xten
ding
all
the
way
to C
ape
Neg
rais
. Mya
nmar
sub
mits
that
“thi
s pa
rt
of th
e co
ast i
s re
leva
nt. I
ts p
roje
ctio
n ov
erla
ps w
ith th
e pr
ojec
tion
of th
e co
ast
of B
angl
ades
h”.
488.
Mya
nmar
sub
mits
that
the
rele
vant
are
a ha
s a
“tota
l sur
face
of
236,
539
squa
re k
ilom
etre
s”. D
urin
g th
e he
arin
g, h
owev
er, M
yanm
ar re
ferre
d
to th
e fig
ure
of a
ppro
xim
atel
y 21
4,30
0sq
uare
kilo
met
res.
* *
*
489.
The
Trib
unal
not
es th
at th
e re
leva
nt m
ariti
me
area
for t
he p
urpo
se o
f
the
delim
itatio
n of
the
excl
usiv
e ec
onom
ic z
one
and
the
cont
inen
tal s
helf
betw
een
Bang
lade
sh a
nd M
yanm
ar is
that
resu
lting
from
the
proj
ectio
ns o
f the
rele
vant
coa
sts
of th
e P
artie
s.
490.
The
Trib
unal
reca
lls th
at th
e Pa
rties
dis
agre
e on
two
poin
ts in
sofa
r as
the
dete
rmin
atio
n of
the
rele
vant
mar
itim
e ar
ea is
con
cern
ed. F
irst,
the
Parti
es
disa
gree
as
to th
e in
clus
ion
of th
e so
uthe
rly m
ariti
me
area
rela
ted
to th
e
sout
hern
par
t of t
he c
oast
of R
akhi
ne w
hich
ext
ends
to C
ape
Neg
rais
and
,
seco
nd, t
hey
also
dis
agre
e on
the
exac
t ext
ent o
f the
rele
vant
are
a in
the
north
-wes
t sec
tion.
491.
Reg
ardi
ng th
e fir
st is
sue,
the
Trib
unal
reca
lls th
at it
has
alre
ady
foun
d
that
the
segm
ent o
f Mya
nmar
’s c
oast
that
runs
from
Bhi
ff C
ape
to C
ape
Neg
rais
is to
be
incl
uded
in th
e ca
lcul
atio
n of
the
rele
vant
coa
st. T
here
fore
,
the
sout
hern
mar
itim
e ar
ea e
xten
ding
to C
ape
Neg
rais
mus
t be
incl
uded
in
the
calc
ulat
ion
of th
e re
leva
nt a
rea
for t
he p
urpo
se o
f the
test
of
disp
ropo
rtion
ality
.The
sou
ther
n lim
it of
the
rele
vant
are
a w
ill be
mar
ked
by
the
para
llel w
estw
ard
from
Cap
e N
egra
is.
the
over
lapp
ing
area
, the
Trib
unal
find
s th
at it
sho
uld
be in
clud
ed in
the
rele
vant
are
a fo
r the
pur
pose
of t
he te
st o
f dis
prop
ortio
nalit
y.
493.
In th
is re
gard
, the
Trib
unal
con
side
rs th
at, f
or th
e pu
rpos
e of
dete
rmin
ing
any
disp
ropo
rtion
ality
in re
spec
t ofa
reas
allo
cate
d to
the
Par
ties,
the
rele
vant
are
a sh
ould
incl
ude
mar
itim
e ar
eas
subj
ect t
o ov
erla
ppin
g
entit
lem
ents
of t
he P
artie
sto
the
pres
ent c
ase.
494.
The
fact
that
a th
ird p
arty
may
cla
im th
e sa
me
mar
itim
e ar
ea d
oes
not
prev
ent i
ts in
clus
ion
in th
e re
leva
nt m
ariti
me
area
for p
urpo
ses
of th
e
disp
ropo
rtion
ality
test
. Thi
s in
no
way
affe
cts
the
right
s of
third
par
ties.
495.
For t
he p
urpo
ses
of th
e de
term
inat
ion
of th
e re
leva
nt a
rea,
the
Trib
unal
deci
des
that
the
wes
tern
lim
it of
the
rele
vant
are
a is
mar
ked
by a
stra
ight
line
draw
n fro
m p
oint
ß2
due
sout
h.
496.
Acc
ordi
ngly
, the
siz
e of
the
rele
vant
are
a ha
s be
en c
alcu
late
d to
be
appr
oxim
atel
y 28
3,47
1sq
uare
kilo
met
res.
497.
The
Trib
unal
will
now
che
ckw
heth
er th
e ad
just
edeq
uidi
stan
ce li
neha
s
caus
ed a
sig
nific
antd
ispr
opor
tion
by re
fere
nce
to th
e ra
tio o
f the
leng
th o
f the
coas
tline
s of
the
Par
ties
and
the
ratio
of t
here
leva
nt m
ariti
me
area
allo
cate
d
to e
ach
Party
.
498.
The
leng
th o
f the
rele
vant
coa
st o
f Ban
glad
esh,
as
indi
cate
d in
para
grap
h 20
2, is
413
kilo
met
res,
whi
le th
at o
f Mya
nmar
, as
indi
cate
d in
para
grap
h20
4, is
587
kilo
met
res.
The
ratio
of t
he le
ngth
of t
he re
leva
nt
coas
ts o
f the
Par
ties
is 1
:1.4
2 in
favo
ur o
f Mya
nmar
.
499.
The
Trib
unal
not
es th
at it
s ad
just
ed d
elim
itatio
n lin
e (s
ee
para
grap
hs33
7-34
0)al
loca
tes
appr
oxim
atel
y 11
1,63
1sq
uare
kilo
met
res
of
the
rele
vant
are
a to
Ban
glad
esh
and
appr
oxim
atel
y 17
1,83
2sq
uare
kilo
met
res
to M
yanm
ar. T
he ra
tio o
f the
allo
cate
d ar
eas
is a
ppro
xim
atel
y
any
sign
ifica
nt d
ispr
opor
tion
in th
e al
loca
tion
of m
ariti
me
area
s to
the
Par
ties
rela
tive
to th
e re
spec
tive
leng
ths
of th
eir c
oast
s th
at w
ould
requ
ire th
e sh
iftin
g
of th
e ad
just
ed e
quid
ista
nce
line
in o
rder
to e
nsur
e an
equ
itabl
e so
lutio
n.