Maritime Boundary Delimitation: United States Practice

Abstract This article summarizes the rules for maritime boundary delimitation and the United States practice in delimiting maritime boundaries. The article concludes with summaries of several problem areas involving maritime boundaries, or the lack thereof, in which the United States has a particular interest. Keywords: maritime boundariesUnited States Acknowledgments The views expressed in this article are not intended to reflect the position of any department of the U.S. government. The author gratefully acknowledges the comments provided by Robert W. Smith, Geographic Consultant, U.S. Department of State (retired). Portions of this article appear in J. A. Roach and R. W. Smith, Excessive Maritime Claims, 3rd edition (Martinus Nijhoff, 2012). Notes 1. On maritime delimitation generally, see UN Division of Ocean Affairs and the Law of the Sea (DOALOS), Handbook on the Delimitation of Maritime Boundaries (2001); R. R. Churchill and A. V. Lowe, The Law of the Sea, 3rd ed. (Manchester: Juris, 2006), chap. 10; V. Prescott and C. Schofield, Maritime Political Boundaries of the World, 2nd ed. (Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff, 2005), chap. 10; and B. Oxman, “International Maritime Boundaries: Political, Strategic, and Historical Considerations,” Inter-American Law Review 26 (1994–1995): 243. See also P. Weil, The Law of Maritime Delimitation―Reflections (Cambridge: Grotius, 1989). 2. U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea, 1833 U.N.T.S. 397, Article 15, contains the same rule that is in 1958 Convention on the Territorial Sea and Continuous Zone, 516 U.N.T.S. 205, Article 12(1). 3. LOS Convention, supra note 2, arts. 74 and 83. 4. Convention on the Continental Shelf, 499 U.N.T.S. 311, art. 6. 5. D. Anderson, “Developments in Maritime Boundary Law and Practice,” in International Maritime Boundaries, Vol. 5, eds. D. Colson and R. W. Smith (Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff, 2005), 3197, 3212, citing N. M. Antunes, Towards the Conceptualization of Maritime Delimitation (2003), at 415; and the Case Concerning the Maritime Delimitation in the Area Between Greenland and Jan Mayes (Denmark v. Norway), [1993] I.C.J. Reports 38, paras. 46 and 48. 6. While these terms refer to the same type of line, median is a term normally used in an opposite situation where equidistance is used in an adjacent situation. Equidistance will be used in this article. 7. Maritime Delimitation and Territorial Questions Between Qatar and Bahrain (Qatar v. Bahrain), Merits, Judgment, [2001] I.C.J. Reports, 94, para. 176. The Court considered the rules in Article 15 to be declarative of customary international law. Qatar v. Bahrain, 94, para. 176. See also Territorial and Maritime Dispute Between Nicaragua and Honduras in the Caribbean Sea (Nicaragua v. Honduras), Judgment, [2007] I.C.J. Reports 659, para. 303 at 751–752; and 46 I.L.M. 1053 (2007). 8. Qatar v. Bahrain, supra note 7, 93–94, para. 175, quoting Territorial Sea Convention, supra note 2, art. 15, second sentence. 9. Maritime Delimitation in the Black Sea (Romania v. Ukraine), Judgment, [2009] I.C.J. Reports 61, at 101–103; and 48 I.L.M. 693 (2009). See also D. Anderson, “Maritime Delimitation in the Black Sea Case,” Law and Practice of International Courts and Tribunals 8 (2009): 1. 10. Ibid., para. 116. 11. Ibid., para. 120. 12. Ibid., para. 122. 13. Ibid., at 108. See also T. L. McDorman, Salt Water Neighbors: International Ocean Law Relations Between the United States and Canada (New York: Oxford, 2009), 197–206. 14. For a discussion of continental shelf delimitation beyond 200 miles, see C. Lathrop, “Continental Shelf Delimitation Beyond 200 Nautical Miles: Approaches Taken by Coastal States Before the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf,” in International Maritime Boundaries, Vol. 6, eds. D. Colson and R. W. Smith (Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff, 2011), 4139. See also A. Oude Elferink, “Causes, Consequences, and Solutions Relating to the Absence of Final and Binding Outer Limits of the Continental Shelf,” in Selected Contemporary Issues in the Law of the Sea, ed. C. R. Symmons (Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff, 2011), 253; R. Volterra, “Problems Arising from Submissions by States to the CLCS in Relation to Disputed Areas: A Selective Survey of State Practice to Date,” in Selected Contemporary Issues in the Law of the Sea, ed. C. R. Symmons (Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff, 2011), 273; R. Macnab, “Third-Party Reactions to Continental Shelf Submissions and their Treatment by the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf,” in Selected Contemporary Issues in the Law of the Sea, ed. C. R. Symmons (Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff, 2011), 285; and B. Kunoy, “Legal Problems Relating to Differences Arising between Recommendations of the CLCS and the Submission of a Particular State,” in Selected Contemporary Issues in the Law of the Sea, ed. C. R. Symmons (Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff, 2011), 305. 15. Summary of the Recommendations of the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf in Regard to the Submission Made by Mexico in Respect of the Western Polygon in the Gulf of Mexico on 13 December 2007, available at the CLCS Web site at www.un.org/Depts/los/clcs_new/clcs_home.htm. 16. Mexico, Maritime Zone Notification M.Z.N.72.2009.LOS, June 8, 2009, available at the Division of Ocean Affairs and the Law of the Sea (DOALOS) Web site at www.un.org/Depts/los. 17. Listed in Anderson, supra note 5, at 3213–3214, n. 57. 18. Dispute Concerning Delimitation of the Maritime Boundary Between Bangladesh and Myanmar in the Bay of Bengal (Bangladesh v. Myanmar), ITLOS Case No. 16, available at www.itlos.org/index.php?id=108&L=0. In its Judgment delivered March 14, 2012, the ITLOS decided that both states were entitled to a continental shelf beyond 200 miles and the boundary thereof “continues in the same direction beyond the 200 nm limit of Bangladesh until it reaches the area where the rights of third States may be affected.” Judgment, para. 462. 19. Dissenting opinion of Judge ad hoc Torres Bernárdez, Qatar v. Bahrain, supra note 7, para. 56 (emphasis in the original). 20. Commonwealth Group of Experts, “Ocean Management: A Regional Perspective—the Prospects for Commonwealth Maritime Co-operation in Asia and the Pacific,” 39 (1984), quoted in S. N. Nandan and S. Rosenne, eds., United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea 1982: A Commentary, Vol. 2, eds. S. N. Nandan and S. Rosenne (Dordrecht: Martinus Nijhoff, 1993), 273–274, para. 33.8(b). It was noted that the chair of this Group of Experts was Satya N. Nandan. 21. United Nations, “Multilateral Treaties Deposited with the Secretary-General: Status,” available at treaties.un.org/pages/Participation/Status.aspx. The U.N. DOALOS Table of Claims to Maritime Jurisdiction (as of July 15, 2011) does not list any maritime claims for Montenegro at the DOALOS Web site, supra note 16. 22. See U.S. Department of State, Digest of United States Practice in International Law, 1980, (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of State, 1981), 597. The Department of State regularly produces these Digests. The Digests since 1989 are available at www.state.gov/s/l/c8183.htm. (Hereafter, they will be referred by year(s) such as Digest, 1980.). 23. Convention ceding Alaska between Russia and the United States, 134 Consolidated Treaty Series 331. 24. See Digest, 1980, at 596–598. 25. Delimitation of the Maritime Boundary in the Gulf of Maine Area (Canada v. United States), [1984] I.C.J. Reports 246. 26. See E. G. Verville, “United States-Soviet Union,” in International Maritime Boundaries, Vol. 1, eds. J. I. Charney and L. M. Alexander (Dordrecht: Martinus Nijhoff, 1996), 447. 27. See Digest, 1977, at 558–559; R.W. Smith, “Cuba-United States,” in Charney and Alexander, supra note 26, at 417; J. A. Roach, R. W. Smith and T. Malionek, in International Maritime Boundaries, Vol. 5, eds. D. Colson and R. W. Smith (Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff, 2005), 3555–3557; and J. A. Roach, “Cuba-United States,” in International Maritime Boundaries, Vol. 6, eds. D. Colson and R. W. Smith (Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff, 2011), 4165. The latest exchange of diplomatic notes occurred in 2011–2012. The texts of the 2005, 2007, 2010, and 2011–2012 diplomatic notes are avail- able at www.state.gov/documents/organization/102355.pdf; www.state.gov/documents/organization/102356.pdf; www.state.gov/documents/organization/163469.pdf; and www.state.gov/documents/organization/191783.pdf. 28. See Digest, 1976, at 348–350. 29. See R. W. Smith and D. A. Colson, “Mexico-United States,” in International Maritime Boundaries, Vol. 1, eds. J. I. Charney and L. M. Alexander (Dordrecht: Martinus Nijhoff, 1996), 427. 30. Cumulative Digest, 1981–1988, at 1928–1930; and Digest, 1989–1990, at 488–489. 31. See Cumulative Digest, 1981–1988, at 1888–1892; and Digest, 2005, at 705–707. 32. The texts of these treaties are available at the DOALOS Web site, supra note 16. The U.S. State Department, the Limits in the Seas analyses of these treaties are available at www.state.gov/g/oes/ocns/opa/convention/c16065.htm. For an extensive discussion of U.S.- Canadian maritime boundary situations, see McDorman, supra note 13, at 115–197. 33. See Smith and Colson, supra note 29 at 427–445. 34. See K. G. Nweihed, “United States (Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands)-Venezuela,” in International Maritime Boundaries, Vol. 1, eds. J. I. Charney and L. M. Alexander (Dordrecht: Martinus Nijhoff, 1996), 691–703. 35. See Smith and Colson, supra note 29, at 427–445; and The Editors, “Mexico-United States,” in International Maritime Boundaries, Vol. 4, eds. J. I. Charney and R. W. Smith (The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff, 2002), 2619. 36. See R. W. Smith, “New Zealand (Tokelan)-United States,” in International Maritime Boundaries, Vol. 1, eds. J. I. Charney and L. M. Alexander (Dordrecht: Martinus Nijhoff, 1996), 1125–1134. 37. See R. W. Smith and D. A. Colson, “Cook Islands-United States (American Samoa),” in International Maritime Boundaries, Vol. 1, eds. J. I. Charney and L. M. Alexander (Dordrecht: Martinus Nijhoff, 1996), 985–993. 38. Gulf of Maine Case, supra note 25; and D. A. Colson, “Canada-United States (Gulf of Maine),” in International Maritime Boundaries, Vol. 1, eds. J. I. Charney and L. M. Alexander (Dordrecht: Martinus Nijhoff, 1996), 401–416. See also Digest, 1979, at 999–1010; Digest, 1980, at 597; and Cumulative Digest, 1981–1989, at 1892–1905, 3377–3382. 39. See J. H. McNeill, “America's Maritime Boundary with the Soviet Union,” Naval War College Review (Summer 1991): 46–57, reprinted in J. N. Moore and R. F. Turner, eds., International Law Studies 1995―Readings on International Law from the Naval War College Review 1978–1994, Vol. 68 (Newport, RI: Naval War College, 1995), 219–230. The U.S. Senate gave its advice and consent to ratification on September 16, 1991. See also Verville, supra note 26, at 447–460; Digest, 1980, at 597; and Digest, 1989–1990, at 434–437. 40. See R. W. Smith and D. A. Colson, “United Kingdom (British Virgin Islands)-United States (Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands),” in International Maritime Boundaries, Vol. 3, eds. J. I Charney and L. M. Alexander (The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff, 2004), 2161–2170. 41. See R. W. Smith and D. A. Colson, “United Kingdom (Anguilla)-United States (US Virgin Islands),” in International Maritime Boundaries, Vol. 3, eds. J. I Charney and L. M. Alexander (The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff, 2004), 2171–2178. 42. See R. W. Smith, “Niue-United States (American Samoa),” in International Maritime Boundaries, Vol. 4, eds. J. I. Charney and R. W. Smith (The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff, 2002), 2673–2682; and The Editors, “Niue-United States (American Samoa),” in International Maritime Boundaries, Vol. 5, eds. D. Colson and R. W. Smith (Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff, 2005), 3734. 43. See R. W. Smith, “Mexico-United States,” in International Maritime Boundaries, Vol. 4, eds. J. I. Charney and R. W. Smith (The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff, 2002), 2621–2633. On February 20, 2012, Mexico and the United States signed an agreement concerning joint exploration and exploitation of geological hydrocarbon structures and reserves that extend across the delimitation line, the entirety of which are located beyond 9 nautical miles from the coastline in the Western Gap of the Gulf of Mexico. The text is available at www.boem.gov/BOEM-newsroom/Library/Boundaries-Mexico.aspx. The Mexican Senate approved the agreement on April 12, 2012. The United States has not yet completed its internal procedures to bring the agreement into force. 44. For a list of some 420 undelimited maritime boundaries as of 1990, see Limits in the Sea, No. 108, “Maritime Boundaries of the World,” 1st rev. (1990). See the DOALOS Web site, supra note 16, for the domestic legislation of these countries on delimitation of their EEZs. 45. For a discussion on the boundary situation in the Arctic, see Prescott and Schofield, supra note 1, at 526–527. See also Cumulative Digest, 1981–1988, at 1888–1892; Digest, 2004, at 734–735; Digest, 2005, at 705–706; and Digest, 2008, at 640–642. 46. Prescott and Schofield, supra note 1, at 418–420, discussed the boundary situation at the Dixon Entrance. See also Digest, 1973, at 465–467; Digest, 1974, at 672–673; and Cumulative Digest, 1981–1988, at 1928. 47. Prescott and Schofield, supra note 1, at 420–421, discussed the boundary situation outside the Strait of Juan de Fuca. 48. See Digest, 1973, at 465–467; Digest, 1974, at 672–673; and Digest, 2005, at 707 (Machias Seal Island). 49. Prescott and Schofield, supra note 1, at 334. See also Digest, 1980, at 597. 50. Since Bermuda lies about 640 nautical miles east-southeast of the nearest landmass, Cape Hatteras, NC, there is a potential for an ECS boundary. However, an ECS has not been confirmed. 51. Prescott and Schofield, supra note 1, at 353–354, discuss the boundary situations with Cuba, Haiti, and Jamaica generated by the U.S. claim of sovereignty over Navassa Island. 52. Ibid., at 355. 53. Ibid., at 357–358 54. A discussion of the boundary and tri-point situations with Navassa is in ibid., at 353–354 and Figure 14.3. 55. Ibid., at 406. 56. Ibid., at 405–406. 57. Ibid., at 409. 58. Ibid., at 409–410. 59. Ibid., at 410. In all three cases, Kiribati has informed the United States that it is prepared to negotiate these maritime boundaries on the basis of equidistance. 60. Ibid., at 417. 61. There was an exchange of Diplomatic Notes with Japan in which each side recognized the EEZ limits claimed by the other. See the U.S. Diplomatic Note of December 22, 2008, not objecting to the Japanese submission to establish the outer limits of its ECS beyond 200 miles in the area, available at the CLCS Web site, supra note 15. Prescott and Schofield, supra note 1, at 417–418, discussed the boundary situation with Japan. 62. Prescott and Schofield, supra note 1, at 414–415, discussed the boundary situation with the Marshall Islands. 63. See the discussion in ibid., at 61–89. ITLOS Judge Vukas has expressed his disagreement with EEZ claims from the Kerguelen Islands (declaration in the 2000 Monte Confurco Case [Seychelles v. France]), Prompt Release, ITLOS Case No. 6 (2001), available at www.itlos.org/start2_en.html; and around Heard Island and the McDonald Islands (declaration in the 2002 Volga Case [Russian Federation v. Australia]), Prompt Release, ITLOS Case No. 11, 42 I.L.M. 159 (2003), available at www.itlos.org/start2_en.html. 64. See the UK statements reprinted in British Year Book of International Law 68 (1997): 599–600; and in British Year Book of International Law 71 (2000): 601. Prescott and Schofield, supra note 1, in fig. 15.5, at 613, illustrate the effect of this rollback. 65. Articles 51 and 63 of the Mexican Sea Law, 1986, states that rocks that cannot sustain human habitation or have an economic life of their own shall have no EEZ or shelf of their own. 66. China Note Verbale to the U.N. Secretary-General CML/2/2009 dated February 6, 2009, available at the CLCS Web site, supra note 15. 67. Korea Note Verbale to the U.N. Secretary-General MUN/046/09 dated February 27, 2009, available at the CLCS Web site, supra note 15. In the context of the South China Sea, a Note Verbale by Indonesia to the U.N. Secretary-General 480/POL-703/VII/10 dated July 8, 2010, available on the CLCS Web site, supra note 15, stated: “Allowing the use of uninhabited rocks, reefs and atolls isolated from the mainland and in the middle of the high sea[s] as a basepoint to generate maritime space concerns the fundamental principles of the Convention and encroaches the legitimate interest[s] of the global community.” 68. Meeting of the States Parties to the LOS Convention (SPLOS), Doc. SPLOS/196, May 22, 2009, available at the DOALOS Web site, supra note 16. China, joined by Korea, also raised this issue at the Fifteenth Meeting of the International Seabed Authority (ISBA) Assembly on May 28, 2009. See ISBA press release SB/15/6, May 28, 2009, 2, available at www.isa.org.jm/files/documents/EN/Press/Press09/SB-15–6.pdf. 69. See Doc. SPLOS/203, at 13 paras. 70–78, available at the DOALOS Web site, supra note 16. One commentator has suggested that the Chinese position here undercuts its claims to all of the Spratly Islands. See R. Beckman, Islands or Rocks? Evolving Dispute in South China Sea, RSIS Commentaries No. 75/2011, May 10, 2011, available at www.rsis.edu.sg/publications/Perspective/RSIS0752011.pdf. 70. Digest, 2009, at 459–460. 71. Report of the Twenty-first Meeting of States Parties, Doc. SPLOS/231, June 29, 2011, para. 87, available at the DOALOS Web site, supra note 16. 72. China Note Verbale to the U.N. Secretary-General CML/59/2011 dated August 3, 2011, available at the CLCS Web site, supra note 15. 73. Korea Note Verbale to the U.N. Secretary-General dated August 11, 2011, available at the Web site of the Commission, supra note 15. 74. Statement by the chairman of the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf, Twenty-third Session, Doc. CLCS/62, April 20, 2009, para. 59, available at the CLCS Web site, supra note 15. 75. Statement by the Chairman of the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf, Twenty-fourth Session, Doc. CLCS/64, October 1, 2009, para. 26, available at the CLCS Web site, supra note 15. 76. China Note Verbale supra note 71. 77. Statement by the chairman, CLCS/64, supra note 75, para. 25. 78. Statement by the chairman of the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf, Twenty-eighth Session, Doc. CLCS/72, September 16, 2011, paras. 14–15, available at the CLCS Web site, supra note 15. 79. Statement by the chairman of the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf, Twenty-ninth Session, Doc. CLCS/74, April 30, 2012, para. 19, available at the CLCS Web site, supra note 15. 80. U.S.-Venezuela Maritime Boundary Treaty, Caracas, March 28, 1978, entered into force November 24, 1980, 32 U.S.T. 3100, T.I.A.S. 9890, 1273 U.N.T.S. 25, Digest, 1978, at 948–949; and Digest, 1980, at 586, 591, 594, Limits in the Seas, No. 91, available at treaties.un.org/doc/Publication/ UNTS/Volume%201273/volume-1273-I-20984-English.pdf and www.state.gov/documents/organization/58824.pdf. See also Nweihed, supra note 34, at 701–703. 81. Delimitation Treaty Between the Government of the French Republic (Martinique and Guadeloupe) and the Government of the Republic of Venezuela (with map), Caracas, July 17, 1980, entered into force January 28, 1983, 1319 U.N.T.S. 215. See also K. G. Nweihed, “France (Guadeloupe and Martinique)-Venezuela,” in Charney and Alexander, supra note 26, at 613–614. 82. Treaty of Delimitation between Venezuela and the Netherlands, Willemstad, March 31, 1978, entered into force December 15, 1978, 1140 U.N.T.S. 311, Limits in the Seas, No. 105. See also K.G. Nweihed, “The Netherlands (Antilles)-Venezuela,” in International Maritime Boundaries, Vol. 1, eds. J. I. Charney and L. M. Alexander (Dordrecht: Martinus Nijhoff, 1996), 631–637. 83. Antigua and Barbuda Note Verbale addressed to the U.N. Secretary-General, June 19, 1997, Law of the Sea Bulletin, No. 35, 97–98. 84. St. Kitts and Nevis Notes Verbale addressed to the U.N. Secretary General, July 16, 1997, Law of the Sea Bulletin, No. 35, 98–99; and November 26, 2001, Law of the Sea Bulletin, No. 48, 61. 85. Saint Lucia Note Verbale addressed to the U.N. Secretary General, dated July 23, 1997, Law of the Sea Bulletin, No. 35, 99–100. 86. St. Vincent and the Grenadines Note Verbale addressed to the U.N. Secretary General, August 8, 1997, Law of the Sea Bulletin, No. 35, 100. 87. See Prescott and Schofield, supra note 1, at 386–388. They do not discuss the January 1932 Convention for the Delimitation of the Territorial Waters Between the Coast of Anatolia and the Island of Castellorizo, ratified by both Italy and Turkey, 138 L.N.T.S. 245 (1933), and subsequent maritime demarcation. See also Case Concerning the Delimitation of the Territorial Waters Between the Island of Castellorizo and the Coasts of Anatolia, [1933] P.C.I.J. Series A/B, No. 51, 4, No. 46, Order of Termination, January 26, 1933. 88. Greek sources include: L. Divani and P. Constantopoulou, eds., The Dodecanese: The Long Road to Union with Greece―Diplomatic Documents from the Historical Archives of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Greece , Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Greece and University of Athens Faculty of Law Athens (Athens: Kastaniotis Editions, 1997); Theodore Kariotis, ed., Greece and the Law of the Sea, Aegean Institute of the Law of the Sea and Maritime Law (The Hague: Kluwer, 1997); and Angelos Syrigos, The Status of the Aegean Sea According to International Law (Athens: Sakkoulas/Bruylant, n.d.). Turkish sources include: Deniz Bölükbaşi, Turkey and Greece: The Aegean Disputes—A Unique Case in International Law (London: Cavendish, 2004); and Yücel Acer, The Aegean Maritime Disputes and International Law (Burlington, VT: Ashgate, 2003). For other discussions of these competing claims, see B. Oxman, “The Application of the Straits Regime Under the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea in Complex Geographic Situations such as the Aegean Sea,” in Defense Analyses Institute, International Conference: The Passage of Ships Through Straits, ed. G. Karabelias (Athens: Defence Analyses Institute, 1999), 25; and “Applying the Law of the Sea in the Aegean Sea,” in Proceedings of the International Symposium in the Problems of Regional Seas, ed. B. Öztürk (Istanbul: Turkish Marine Research Foundation, 2001), 266. 89. U.S. State Department telegram, 73 State 249865, 222257Z Dec 73, Subj: ROKG Legal on Coastal June 30, 2005, available at See Sea Naval available at and U.S. and S. Korea to Maritime at Sea,” available at See also Prescott and Schofield, supra note 1, at and fig. at See J. B. and M. Naval on the and the for a Sea available at Treaty, supra note 39. Treaty Between and the Federation Concerning Maritime Delimitation and in the Sea and the September 15, 2010, reprinted in T. and G. “Maritime Delimitation in the The Sea Ocean and International Law 13 International Boundaries Research Maritime Jurisdiction and Boundaries in the and note available at See United Nations, “Multilateral Treaties supra note 21. 2, of the of and to Senate Report March 11, 2004, at and Senate Report December 17, 2007, at 19.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.