Delimitation methodology for the continental shelf beyond 200 nautical miles: Three-stage approach as a way forward?

IF 1.3 2区 社会学 Q1 LAW
Xuexia Liao
{"title":"Delimitation methodology for the continental shelf beyond 200 nautical miles: Three-stage approach as a way forward?","authors":"Xuexia Liao","doi":"10.1017/s0922156523000596","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Delimitation of the continental shelf beyond 200 nautical miles (nm) is a relatively novel exercise by international courts and tribunals, and a question that assumes theoretical and practical importance is whether the delimitation methodology primarily developed in maritime delimitation within 200 nm can be applied to the delimitation beyond that distance. In contrast to some prevailing arguments that the delimitation methodology for the continental shelf beyond 200 nm should somewhat differ, this article examines whether the delimitation beyond 200 nm can be integrated under the three-stage approach articulated by the ICJ in the 2009 <jats:italic>Black Sea</jats:italic> case and discusses what methodological problems have been raised in the delimitation process. By analysing the applicability and application of the three-stage approach to the continental shelf delimitation beyond 200 nm in the jurisprudence, this article argues that substantive integration of the delimitation methodology for the continental shelf beyond 200 nm has taken place and is likely to continue. The integrated approach to the delimitation methodology adopted in the <jats:italic>Bangladesh</jats:italic> v. <jats:italic>India</jats:italic> case and the <jats:italic>Ghana/Côte d’Ivoire</jats:italic> case may prove to be guiding precedents that indicate a way forward in the jurisprudence.","PeriodicalId":46816,"journal":{"name":"Leiden Journal of International Law","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2023-11-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Leiden Journal of International Law","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/s0922156523000596","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Delimitation of the continental shelf beyond 200 nautical miles (nm) is a relatively novel exercise by international courts and tribunals, and a question that assumes theoretical and practical importance is whether the delimitation methodology primarily developed in maritime delimitation within 200 nm can be applied to the delimitation beyond that distance. In contrast to some prevailing arguments that the delimitation methodology for the continental shelf beyond 200 nm should somewhat differ, this article examines whether the delimitation beyond 200 nm can be integrated under the three-stage approach articulated by the ICJ in the 2009 Black Sea case and discusses what methodological problems have been raised in the delimitation process. By analysing the applicability and application of the three-stage approach to the continental shelf delimitation beyond 200 nm in the jurisprudence, this article argues that substantive integration of the delimitation methodology for the continental shelf beyond 200 nm has taken place and is likely to continue. The integrated approach to the delimitation methodology adopted in the Bangladesh v. India case and the Ghana/Côte d’Ivoire case may prove to be guiding precedents that indicate a way forward in the jurisprudence.
200海里以外大陆架的划界方法:三阶段法是否可行?
200海里(海里)以外大陆架划界是国际法院和法庭的一项相对新颖的工作,一个具有理论和实践重要性的问题是,最初在200海里范围内的海洋划界中发展起来的划界方法是否可以适用于该距离以外的划界。一些流行的观点认为,200海里以外大陆架的划界方法应该有所不同,与此相反,本文考察了200海里以外的划界是否可以纳入国际法院在2009年黑海案中阐述的三阶段方法,并讨论了在划界过程中提出的方法问题。通过分析三阶段法对200海里以上大陆架划界的法理适用性和应用,本文认为,200海里以上大陆架划界方法的实质性整合已经发生,并可能继续进行。在孟加拉国诉印度案和加纳/Côte科特迪瓦案中采用的划界方法的综合办法可能证明是指导性的先例,指明了法理学的前进方向。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.30
自引率
6.70%
发文量
67
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信