{"title":"Delimitation of the Extended Continental Shelf in Somalia v. Kenya in the ICJ: A Critique","authors":"Jianjun Gao","doi":"10.1093/chinesejil/jmad001","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n Somalia v. Kenya is the first case where the ICJ delimited the boundary line of the continental shelf beyond 200 nautical miles (the so-called “extended continental shelf”) between the Parties. Compared with the previous cases decided by other international tribunals on the same issue, the present case shows some differences. Particularly, the ICJ did not mention the three-stage methodology or other delimitation methods in the delimitation of the extended continental shelf, nor did it identify the relevant area or apply the disproportionality test. The ICJ in this case did not have any reliable evidence to ascertain the Parties’ entitlements to the extended continental shelf, and it did not make a clear determination on the issue of entitlements accordingly. The ICJ delimited the extended continental shelf by extending the boundary line within 200 nautical miles in the same direction, but its reasoning is not sufficient to support the decision. Besides, the Court did not pronounce that the delimitation line achieves an equitable solution. Indeed, in light of the relationship between entitlement and delimitation as well as the circumstances of the present case, the ICJ should have declined to delimit the extended continental shelf.","PeriodicalId":45438,"journal":{"name":"Chinese Journal of International Law","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2023-02-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Chinese Journal of International Law","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/chinesejil/jmad001","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Somalia v. Kenya is the first case where the ICJ delimited the boundary line of the continental shelf beyond 200 nautical miles (the so-called “extended continental shelf”) between the Parties. Compared with the previous cases decided by other international tribunals on the same issue, the present case shows some differences. Particularly, the ICJ did not mention the three-stage methodology or other delimitation methods in the delimitation of the extended continental shelf, nor did it identify the relevant area or apply the disproportionality test. The ICJ in this case did not have any reliable evidence to ascertain the Parties’ entitlements to the extended continental shelf, and it did not make a clear determination on the issue of entitlements accordingly. The ICJ delimited the extended continental shelf by extending the boundary line within 200 nautical miles in the same direction, but its reasoning is not sufficient to support the decision. Besides, the Court did not pronounce that the delimitation line achieves an equitable solution. Indeed, in light of the relationship between entitlement and delimitation as well as the circumstances of the present case, the ICJ should have declined to delimit the extended continental shelf.
期刊介绍:
The Chinese Journal of International Law is the leading forum for articles on international law by Chinese scholars and on international law issues relating to China. An independent, peer-reviewed research journal edited primarily by scholars from mainland China, and published in association with the Chinese Society of International Law, Beijing, and Wuhan University Institute of International Law, Wuhan, the Journal is a general international law journal with a focus on materials and viewpoints from and/or about China, other parts of Asia, and the broader developing world.