Last updated 10th July 2024: Online ordering is currently unavailable due to technical issues. We apologise for any delays responding to customers while we resolve this. For further updates please visit our website https://www.cambridge.org/news-and-insights/technical-incident
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 13 December 2013
This paper is a response to the latest Bangladesh/Myanmar case decided by the ITLOS on 14 March 2012, which is the first case concerning delimitation of the continental shelf beyond 200 nm. The paper aims to discuss the status and role of natural prolongation in delimiting this area. Natural prolongation constitutes the legal basis for entitlement to the continental shelf beyond 200 nm. Also, natural prolongation should play a role as a relevant circumstance in delimiting the continental shelf beyond 200 nm. To address these two issues, the judgment of the Bangladesh/Myanmar case will also be reviewed. Both the interpretation of the meaning of natural prolongation and its exclusion in the delimitation process are not convincing. Hence, the Judgment's future influence on the continental shelf delimitation is limited.
This research is funded by the Philosophy and Social Science Cultivation Project of Sun Yat-sen University on the Innovation Research Group (Project No. 12000-3281901). The authors wish to thank very much the reviewers for their hard work on the draft paper and for their valuable comments. The views expressed herein are, of course, those of the authors alone.
1. Dispute Concerning Delimitation of the Maritime Boundary between Bangladesh and Myanmar in the Bay of Bengal (Bangladesh/Myanmar) [2012] ITLOS Case no. 16 at 124, paras. 424−5 [Bangladesh/Myanmar case].
2. Ibid., at 127, para. 435.
3. Ibid., at 128, para. 437.
4. Bangladesh/Myanmar case, Declaration of Judge Wolfrum at 6.
5. Bangladesh/Myanmar case, Separate Opinion of Judge Gao at 36, para. 87.
6. Bangladesh/Myanmar case, supra note 1 at 117, para. 398.
7. Ibid., para. 397.
8. Steinar Thor GUDLAUGSSON, “Natural Prolongation and the Concept of the Continental Margin for the Purposes of Article 76” in Myron H. NORDQUIST et al. eds., Legal and Scientific Aspects of Continental Shelf Limits (Leiden/Boston: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2004) at 67 Google Scholar
TANAKA, Yoshifumi, Predictability and Flexibility in the Law of Maritime Delimitation (Portland, OR: Hart Publishing, 2006) at 140 Google Scholar
9. CHURCHILL, R.R. and LOWE, A.V., The Law of the Sea (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1999) at 143−144 Google Scholar
10. TANAKA, Yoshifumi, The International Law of the Sea (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012) at 133 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
11. North Sea Continental Shelf Case (Federal Republic of Germany/Denmark; Federal Republic of Germany/Netherlands) [1969] I.C.J. Rep. 4 at 47, para. 85 [North Sea].
12. Peter-Tobias STOLL, Continental Shelf, online: Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law 〈www.mpepil.com〉, para. 14.
13. Article 76(1) reads:
The continental shelf of a coastal State comprises the seabed and subsoil of the submarine areas that extend beyond its territorial sea throughout the natural prolongation of its land territory to the outer edge of the continental margin, or to a distance of 200 nautical miles from the baselines from which the breadth of the territorial sea is measured where the outer edge of the continental margin does not extend up to that distance.
United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, 10 December 1982, 1833 U.N.T.S. 397 (entered into force 16 November 1994), online: UN 〈/http://www.un.org/Depts/los/convention_agreements/texts/unclos/unclos_e.pdf〉.
14. Continental Shelf Case (Libyan Arab Jamahiriya/Malta) [1985] I.C.J. Rep. 13 at 33, para. 34 [Libya/Malta].
15. Tanaka, supra note 10 at 135Google Scholar
KUNOY, Bjørn, “A Geometric Variable Scope of Delimitations: The Impact of a Geological and Geomorphologic Title to the Outer Continental Shelf” (2006) 11 Austrian Review of International and European Law 49 at 67 Google Scholar
16. LLOYD, Stephen, “Natural Prolongation: Have the Rumors of its Demise Been Greatly Exaggerated?” (1991) 3 African Journal of International & Comparative Law 558 at 570 Google Scholar
17. Jianjun, GAO, “The Okinawa Trough Issue in the Continental Shelf Delimitation Disputes Within the East China Sea” (2010) 9 Chinese Journal of International Law 143 at 166 Google Scholar
18. For more details, see 104th Plenary Meeting, Seventh and Resumed Seventh Session, Volume IX Official Records Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea, UN Doc. No. A/CONF.62/SR.104 (1978); 116th Plenary Meeting, Eighth Session, XI Official Records, Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea, UN. Doc. A/CONF.62/SR.116 (1979).
19. Bangladesh/Myanmar case, Counter-Memorial of the Union of Myanmar, Vol. 1, 1 December 2010, at 184, para. A.15.
20. 18th Plenary Meeting, Second Session, II Official Records, Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea, UN. Doc. A/CONF.62/C2/SR.18 (1978).
21. 19th Plenary Meeting, Second Session, II Official Records, Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea, UN Doc. A/CONF.62/C2/SR.19 (1978).
22. In the Matter of an Arbitration between Barbados and the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago, Award of the Arbitral Tribunal, Award of 11 April 2006, at 69, para. 225, online: 〈http://www.pca-cpa.org/showpageasp?pag_id=1152〉 [Barbados/Trinidad and Tobago].
23. Ibid., at 66, para. 213. This interpretation is also repeated in the Bangladesh/Myanmar case; see supra note 1 at 108, para. 361.
24. Scientific and Technical Guidelines of the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf, Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf (adopted 13 May 1999), CLCS/11, online: CLCS 〈http://www.un.org/Depts/los/clcs_new/commission_documents.htm#Guidelines〉.
25. KUNOY, Bjørn, “Establishment of the Outer Limits of the Continental Shelf: Is Crossing Boundaries Trespassing?” (2011) 26 The International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law 313 at 322 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
26. MCDORMAN, Ted L., “The Continental Shelf Beyond 200 nm: Law and Politics in the Arctic Ocean” (2009) 18 Journal of Transnational Law and Policy 155 at 183 Google Scholar
27. LLEWELLYN, Huw, “The Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf: Joint Submission by France, Ireland, Spain, and the United Kingdom” (2007) 56 International and Comparative Law Quarterly 677 at 687 Google Scholar
28. Constance JOHNSON and Alex G. OUDE ELFERINK, “Submissions to the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf in Cases of Unresolved Land and Maritime Disputes: The Significance of Article 76(10) of the Convention on the Law of the Sea” in David FREESTONE et al., eds., The Law of the Sea: Progress and Prospects (New York: Oxford University Press, 2006), at 167−169Google Scholar
29. Bangladesh/Myanmar case, supra note 1 at 126, para. 429.
30. I Made Andi ARSANA, The Delineation of Indonesia's Outer Limits of its Extended Continental Shelf and Preparation for its Submission: Status and Problems (New York: Office of Legal Affairs, the United Nations, 2007) at 11.
31. North Sea, supra note 11 at 31, para. 43.
32. Bangladesh/Myanmar case, Dissenting Opinion of Judge Lucky at 42.
33. Bangladesh/Myanmar case, Separate Opinion of Judge Gao at 35, para. 85.
34. Bangladesh/Myanmar case, supra note 1 at 127, paras. 433−4.
35. Tomas H. HEIDAR, “Legal Aspects of Continental Shelf Limits” in Myron H. NORDQUIS et al., eds., Legal and Scientific Aspects of Continental Shelf Limits (Leiden/Boston: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2004)Google Scholar
36. Bangladesh/Myanmar case, supra note 1 at 126, para. 429.
37. North Sea, supra note 11 at 31, para. 43.
38. Gudlaugsson, supra note 8 at 68Google Scholar
39. CARLETON, Chris, “Article 76 of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea—Implementation Problems from the Technical Perspective” (2006) 21 International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law 287 at 290 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
40. Judge Lucky, supra note 32 at 43Google Scholar
41. Judge Gao, supra note 33 at 37Google Scholar
42. Bangladesh/Myanmar case, supra note 1 at 127, para. 435.
43. ELFERINK, Alex G. OUDE, “Article 76 of the LOSC on the Definition of the Continental Shelf: Questions Concerning its Interpretation from a Legal Perspective” (2006) 21 The International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law 269 at 270 Google Scholar
44. Bangladesh/Myanmar case, supra note 1 at 127, para. 435.
45. Judge Gao, supra note 33 at 37Google Scholar
46. Judge Lucky, supra note 32 at 41Google Scholar
47. Bangladesh/Myanmar case, supra note 1 at 128, para. 436.
48. Ibid., para. 437.
49. JIA, Bing Bing, “Effect of Legal Issues, Actual or Implicit, upon the Work of the CLCS: Suspensive or Without Prejudice?” (2012) 11 Chinese Journal of International Law 107 at 107 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
50. EGEDE, Edwin, “Submission of Brazil and Article 76 of the Law of the Sea Convention (LOSC) 1982” (2006) 23 The International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law 33 at 37 Google Scholar
51. Supra note 24, para. 2.2.1.
52. Carleton, supra note 39 at 290Google Scholar
53. Oude Elferink, supra note 43 at 277Google Scholar
54. Bangladesh/Myanmar case, supra note 1 at 120, para. 409.
55. Ibid., at 278.
56. Gudlaugsson, supra note 8 at 62Google Scholar
57. Art. 38(1)(d), Statute of the International Court of Justice.
58. Lloyd, supra note 16 at 559Google Scholar
59. Case concerning the Continental Shelf (Tunisia/Libyan Arab Jamahiriya), [1982] I.C.J. Rep. 18 at 35, para. 48 [Tunisia/Libya].
60. Tanaka, supra note 8 at 147Google Scholar
61. HUTCHINSON, D.N., “The Concept of Natural Prolongation in the Jurisprudence Concerning Delimitation of Continental Shelf Areas” (1985) 87 British Yearbook of International Law 133 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
62. North Sea, supra note 11 at 31, para. 43.
63. Ibid.
64. KUNOY, B., “The Rise of the Sun: Legal Arguments in Outer Continental Margin Delimitations” (2006) 53 Netherlands International Law Review 247 at 257 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
65. North Sea, supra note 11 at 31, para. 43.
66. Hutchinson, supra note 61 at 136Google Scholar
67. Tunisia/Libya, supra note 59 at 48, para. 48.
68. Ibid., at 47, para. 44 (emphasis added).
69. Ibid., at 46, para. 42.
70. Ibid., at 47, para. 44.
71. Anglo-French Continental Shelf Arbitration (France v. United Kingdom), [1977] International Law Reports [Anglo-French].
72. Ibid., at 91, para. 191.
73. Case Concerning the Delimitation of the Maritime Boundary Between Guinea and Guinea-Bissau [1985] Reports of International Arbitral Awards at 192, para. 116 [Guinea/Guinea-Bissau].
74. Tunisia/Libya, supra note 59 at 57, para. 66.
75. Ibid., at 59, para. 70 (emphasis added).
76. Robert W. SMITH and George TAFT, “Legal Aspects of the Continental Shelf” in Peter J. COOK and Chris M. CARLETON, eds., Continental Shelf Limits: The Scientific and Legal Interface (New York: Oxford University Press, 2000)Google Scholar
77. Bangladesh/Myanmar case, supra note 1 at 127, para. 433.
78. Gudlaugsson, supra note 8 at 63Google Scholar
79. Smith and Taft, supra note 76 at 17Google Scholar
80. Case Concerning Delimitation of the Maritime Boundary in the Gulf of Maine [1984] I.C.J. Rep. 246 at 296, para. 103 [Gulf of Maine].
81. North Sea, supra note 11 at pp. 50−1, paras. 94−5. Also, in para. 101(D) where the Court decided what were the factors to be taken into account in the course of the negotiations, the Court included “the physical and geological structure”.
82. Tunisia/Libya, supra note 59 at 58, para. 68 (emphasis added).
83. Ibid.
84. Libya/Malta, supra note 14 at 35, para. 39.
85. EVANS, Malcolm D., “Maritime Delimitation and Expanding Categories of Relevant Circumstances” (1991) 40 International and Comparative Law Quarterly 1 at 19 Google Scholar
86. Libya/Malta, supra note 14 at 35, para. 40.
87. This is due to the fact that all the cases afterwards are concerned with maritime delimitation within 200 nm. The Black Sea case is such an example. The Black Sea is an enclosed sea surrounded by six countries and all points are within 200 nm off the coast of at least one of the riparian states. Since none of the parties could claim a continental shelf extending beyond 200 nm based on natural prolongation criterion, the 200 nm distance allows the coastal states to claim rights over a continental shelf as well as EEZ up to 200 nm.
88. Evans, supra note 85 at 3Google Scholar
89. Libya/Malta, supra note 14 at 40, para. 48.
90. North Sea, supra note 11 at 50, para. 93.
91. The Guyana/ Suriname Arbitration Awards, Award of the Arbitral Tribunal 2007, at 114, para. 356, online: PCA 〈http://www.pca-cpa.org/showpage.asp?pag_id=1147〉 [Guyana/Suriname].
92. Barbados / Trinidad and Tobago case, supra note 22 at 70, para. 228.
93. KAYE, Stuart, “The Use of Multiple Boundaries in Maritime Boundary Delimitation: Law and Practice” (1998) 19 Australian Yearbook of International Law 49 at 58 Google Scholar
94. CHURCHILL, Robin, “The Bangladesh/Myanmar Case: Continuity and Novelty in the Law of Maritime Boundary Delimitation” (2012) 1 Cambridge Journal of International and Comparative Law 137 at 149 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
COLSON, David A., “The Delimitation of the Outer Continental Shelf between Neighboring States” (2003) 97 American Journal of International Law 91 at 107 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
HIGHET, Keith, “The Use of Geophysical Factors in the Delimitation of Maritime Boundaries” in Jonathan I. CHARNEY and Lewis M. ALEXANDER, eds., International Maritime Boundaries, Vol. 1 (Dordrecht/Boston/London: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 1996) at 196Google Scholar
95. MACNAB, Ron, “Initial Assessment” in Cook and Carleton, supra note 76 at 255Google Scholar
96. Kunoy, supra note 64 at 261Google Scholar
97. Colson, supra note 94 at 103Google Scholar
98. Libya/Malta, supra note 14 at 47, para. 61.
99. Ibid,, at 40, para. 48.
100. North Sea, supra note 11 at 47, para. 85.
101. Tunisia/Libya, Separate Opinion of Judge ad hoc Jimenez de Arechaga, paras. 111−12.
102. Maritime Delimitation in the Area between Greenland and Jan Mayen (Denmark v. Norway), [1993] I.C.J. Rep. 38 at 64, para. 59.
103. WEIL, Prosper, The Law of Maritime Delimitations: Reflections (Cambridge: Grotius Publications Ltd., 1989) at 51 Google Scholar
104. Barbados / Trinidad and Tobago case, supra note 22 at 70, para. 232.
105. ZAHRAA, Mahdi, “Natural Prolongation and Delimitation of Maritime Boundaries” (1996) 7 Finnish Yearbook of International Law 378 at 386 Google Scholar
106. CARLETON, Chris M., “Delimitation Issues” in Cook and Carleton, supra note, 76 at 316Google Scholar
107. PRESCOTT, Victor, “Resources of the Continental Margin and International Law” in Cook and Carleton, supra note 106 at 82Google Scholar
108. Gao, supra note 17 at 174−175Google Scholar
109. In fact, in the most recent Nicaragua v. Colombia case decided by the ICJ on 19 November 2012, the Court refused to even consider whether the maritime boundary between Nicaragua and Colombia should be that between the outer limit of the continental margin of Nicaragua with the 200 nm limit of Colombia, because the Court observed that “Nicaragua has not established that it has a continental margin that extends far enough to overlap with Colombia's 200 nm entitlement to the continental shelf measured from Colombia's mainland coast”. See Territorial and Maritime Dispute (Nicaragua v. Colombia), Judgment of 19 November 2012, at 46, para. 129, online: ICJ 〈http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/index.php?p1=3&p2=3&k=e2&case=124&code=nicol&p3=4〉.
110. See Carleton, supra note 106 at 314−16.
111. Bangladesh/Myanmar case, Counter Memorial of Myanmar, at 178, para. A.7.
112. Churchill, supra note 94 at 150Google Scholar
113. Bangladesh/Myanmar case, Joint Declaration of Judges ad hoc Mensah and Oxman, para. 11 (emphasis added).
114. GAO Jianjun, “Guanyu Ziranyanshen Zhongduan de Shizheng Kaocha” [Empirical Research on the Disruption of the Natural Prolongation] in GAO Zhiguo et al. eds., Guoji Haiyangfa Lilun Yu Shijian [Theory and Practice of the International Laws of the Sea] (Beijing: Ocean Press, 2006), at 40.
115. Bangladesh/Myanmar case, Declaration of Judge Wolfrum at 6.
116. Bangladesh/Myanmar case, supra note 1 at 96, para. 317.
117. Gulf of Maine, supra note 80 at 296, para. 103.
118. Tunisia/Libya, supra note 59 at 53, para. 61 (emphasis added).
119. North Sea, supra note 11 at 50, para. 91.
120. Guyana/Suriname, supra note 91 at 121, para. 374.
121. Weil, supra note 103 at 85Google Scholar
122. Case Concerning Land and Maritime Boundary between Cameroon and Nigeria (Cameroon v. Nigeria), [2002] I.C.J. Rep. 303 at 444, para. 295.
123. Weil, supra note 103 at 88Google Scholar
124. North Sea, supra note 11 at 49, para. 91.
125. Weil, supra note 103 at 87Google Scholar
126. Gao, supra note 17 at 172Google Scholar
127. Lloyd, supra note 16 at 565Google Scholar
128. Tanka, supra note 8Google Scholar
Lloyd, supra note 16 at 562−569Google Scholar
129. Jonathan I. CHARNEY et al. eds., International Maritime Boundaries, Vol. IV (The Hague/London/New York: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2002) at 2710Google Scholar
130. Gao, supra note 17 at 174Google Scholar
131. Charney, supra note 129Google Scholar
132. Nicaragua requested that the Court define the boundary in words such as “the boundary is the median line between the outer edge of Nicaragua's continental shelf fixed in accordance with UNCLOS Article 76 and the outer limit of Colombia's 200-mile-limit zone”. Nicaragua v. Colombia, supra note 109 at 46, para. 128.
133. Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Dhaka, “Delimitation of Bangladesh/Myanmar Maritime Boundary: A Frontier for Deepening Cooperation”, online: MOFA 〈http://www.mofa.gov.bd/Docx/MaritimeSpecialIssue.pdf〉.
134. Bangladesh/Myanmar case, supra note 1 at 142, paras. 497−9.
135. The final delimitation line by the Tribunal is substantially identical with the provisional line claimed by Bangladesh as a result of the application of the angle-bisector method. In this aspect, although the Tribunal rejected the proposal by Bangladesh, the Tribunal made the delimitation line substantially in favour of Bangladesh; see Bangladesh/Myanmar case, Separate Opinion of Judge Gao, at 19−20, paras. 48−52.
