Settling of the maritime boundaries of the United States: Cost of settlement and the benefits of legal certainty

Ásgeirsdóttir, Áslaug

doi:10.1016/j.marpol.2016.08.008

Cited by 4 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 21 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…44 In fact, the United States seem to have delimited overlapping exclusive economic zone entitlements in the Pacific and with Haiti by de facto equidistance boundaries. 45…”

Section: Default Rule For Delimiting Overlapping Territorial Sea Enti...mentioning

confidence: 99%

Provisional boundaries and alternative solutions to maritime delimitation

Árnadóttir¹

2022

Leiden Journal of International Law

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article is a rejoinder to Dr. Massimo Lando’s ‘Stability of maritime boundaries and the challenge of geographical change’ which proposes that positive international law offers no legal basis for the delimitation of fluctuating boundaries and discusses the many complexities involved in the delimitation and management of such boundaries. This rejoinder delves deeper into the main point of contention: the legal basis for fluctuating boundaries. It argues that coastal states have an inherent entitlement to a territorial sea and that Article 15 of The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) entails a default rule for the establishment of provisional fluctuating boundaries. This limit is not necessarily a strict median line because it may be adjusted by reference to special circumstances. Furthermore, the lack of explicit reference to provisional arrangements in UNCLOS Article 15 should not be read as an indication that there are no provisional boundaries in the absence of boundary agreements. This article further argues that there are judicial precedents for fluctuating boundary-segments. The Nicaragua v. Honduras decision left a segment of the territorial sea un-delimited, resulting in a partially fluctuating boundary, until otherwise agreed. Moreover, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) explicitly established a mobile boundary-segment in Costa Rica v. Nicaragua but as highlighted by Dr. Lando, this was done with the permission of the parties. Much depends on the claims brought by disputing parties and their stance on fluctuating boundaries but this decision demonstrated the ICJ’s willingness to employ fluctuating boundaries in response to coastal instability.

show abstract

“…44 In fact, the United States seem to have delimited overlapping exclusive economic zone entitlements in the Pacific and with Haiti by de facto equidistance boundaries. 45…”

Section: Default Rule For Delimiting Overlapping Territorial Sea Enti...mentioning

confidence: 99%

Provisional boundaries and alternative solutions to maritime delimitation

Árnadóttir¹

2022

Leiden Journal of International Law

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Examples ranging from the USA to Colombia and Norway illustrates this. 130 Australia is no exception, having engaged in various agreements with states in its northern regional complex starting from the 1970s and ending in 2018. The 2018 Agreement with Timor-Leste has further led to questions being asked about re-visiting the still-not-ratified 1997 Agreement with Indonesia, 131 although that might prove more challenging than advantageous for both parties.…”

Section: B Why Settle?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Drawing Lines at Sea: Australia’s Five Decades of Maritime Boundary Delimitation

Østhagen¹

2021

Aust. Year Book Int. Law Onl.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Boundaries in the ocean are man-made constructs of importance to everything from oil and gas production, to fisheries and environmental protection. How do states delineate such ownership and rights? These are the core questions examined in this article, which studies Australia’s maritime boundary agreements, starting with Indonesia in 1971 and ending with Timor-Leste in 2019. In addition to depicting and documenting the main drivers and impediments to these agreements whenever Australia has had to negotiate with a third country, it examines Australia’s approach to boundary-making at sea more generally. Drawing on international law and political science, this article shows why we need understand the interplay between security politics, legal considerations and domestic interests in order to understand what motivates states to settle their maritime disputes.

show abstract

Troubled seas? The changing politics of maritime boundary disputes

Østhagen

2021

Ocean & Coastal Management

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Settling of the maritime boundaries of the United States: Cost of settlement and the benefits of legal certainty

Cited by 4 publications

References 21 publications

Provisional boundaries and alternative solutions to maritime delimitation

Provisional boundaries and alternative solutions to maritime delimitation

Drawing Lines at Sea: Australia’s Five Decades of Maritime Boundary Delimitation

Troubled seas? The changing politics of maritime boundary disputes

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About