The effects of third-party intervention in the adjudication of maritime delimitation disputes

Abstract

Although the adjudication of a maritime boundary dispute is usually a bilateral process, it is also often the case that third States have an interest in the delimitation to be carried out. Coupled with the potential for the delimitation decisions of courts and tribunals to impact their maritime claims or entitlements, this raises the concern that third State interests could be prejudiced by such a dispute settlement process, without their participation. While third-party intervention has been suggested as a possible means of recourse for such third States, this article argues that third States may, in practice, be hesitant of resorting to intervention. This is because attempts to intervene, whether successful or unsuccessful, are likely to entail the court or tribunal’s eventual decision having some legally binding effects on the third State. Further, alternative options remain available to third States desirous of a platform to make their interests known.