Appunti caso c International Organizations

CASE STUDY “C” – DELIMITATION IN THE BLACK SEA

Part I – Introductory aspects

1. What is the general background to the dispute and what are the

main peculiarities of the geographic setting relevant to the

dispute?

The dispute between Romania and Ukraine over the delimitation of their

continental shelf and exclusive economic zones in the Black Sea has its roots in

historical complexities and geopolitical tensions. After the dissolution of the

Soviet Union and Ukraine's subsequent independence in 1991, unresolved

territorial issues, particularly around Serpents’ Island, a small but strategically

significant island, became a focal point. Both countries recognized the need for a

clear maritime boundary, especially given the region's substantial hydrocarbon

resources. To manage their bilateral relations and address disputes, Romania and

Treaty on Good Neighbourliness and Co-operation

Ukraine signed the in 1997,

which included provisions for resolving conflicts through negotiation and

potentially international adjudication. An Additional Agreement in the same

year further allowed for the referral of disputes to the International Court of

Justice (ICJ). Following unsuccessful bilateral negotiations on the maritime

boundary, Romania sought ICJ adjudication in 2004, basing the Court's jurisdiction

on the agreements. The ICJ proceedings included the submission of memorials,

counter-memorials, replies, and rejoinders from both countries. A significant

procedural point involved Romania's late submission of a new document, which

Ukraine contested. However, the Court allowed the document's inclusion after

additional explanations. Both countries presented different methods and

coordinates for the delimitation, with Romania favoring an equidistant line

adjusted for equity and Ukraine proposing a line influenced significantly by

Serpents’ Island. The ICJ proceedings aimed to provide a definitive legal

resolution to ensure clarity and stability in the maritime boundaries, thereby

facilitating the lawful exploitation of marine resources in the Black Sea.

The maritime delimitation dispute between Romania and Ukraine in the Black Sea

involves a contested area in the north-western part of the sea. This region is

influenced by its enclosed nature and proximity to the Danube delta. A key

geographic feature in the dispute is Serpents’ Island, a small island whose location and

status significantly impact the maritime boundary. These factors complicate the

delimitation of the continental shelf and exclusive economic zones between the two

countries.

2. Please describe, in general terms, questions relating to jurisdiction

of the ICJ and the law applicable by it, having regard to the subject

matter of the case.

The dispute between Romania and Ukraine involves the establishment of a

maritime boundary delimiting the continental shelf and exclusive economic zones

in the Black Sea. This arose after prolonged, unsuccessful negotiations following

the 1997 Treaty on Good Neighbourliness and Cooperation. Romania eventually

referred the matter to the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in 2004, invoking

Article 36 of the ICJ Statute and the Additional Agreement to the 1997

Treaty, which allowed for ICJ intervention if bilateral negotiations failed.

Jurisdictionally, the ICJ's authority is based on the agreement of both

parties, who concurred that the Court had jurisdiction to resolve their delimitation

dispute. However, they differed on the scope of this jurisdiction. Romania

argued for a broad interpretation that included confirming existing

boundaries and determining new ones where necessary. Ukraine argued for

a more restricted scope, limiting the Court's jurisdiction to the

delimitation of the continental shelf and exclusive economic zones,

excluding territorial seas.

Regarding applicable law, both parties are signatories to the United Nations

Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), which guides maritime delimitation

through principles of equity and proportionality. The ICJ is tasked with applying

international law, specifically UNCLOS, as interpreted through its own

jurisprudence. Additionally, agreements and treaties between the parties, such as

Additional Agreement Procès-Verbaux

the 1997 and various , are considered

where relevant. The ICJ must determine whether these agreements impact

the current delimitation and how principles of international law apply to

the unique geographical and legal context of the Black Sea.

Part II – The status quo

3. Was there a maritime boundary between the two countries before

the institution of these proceeding?

The Court acknowledges that Romania and Ukraine disagree on the existence

and nature of a maritime boundary around Serpents’ Island, as well as on the

starting point for delimitation. Romania argues that historical agreements with

the Soviet Union, particularly the 1949 General Procès-Verbal and subsequent

treaties, established a boundary along a 12-nautical-mile arc around

Serpents’ Island, binding Ukraine as a successor state. Romania claims this

boundary extended beyond border sign 1439 and included an endpoint referred to as

Point X

" ." Ukraine, however, contends that these agreements only delimited the

territorial sea, not a broader maritime boundary encompassing the continental shelf

and exclusive economic zone. Ukraine argues that no agreed boundary extended

to Romania's alleged Point X, as evidenced by contemporaneous documents and

maps, which show the boundary ending at a point close to the later-agreed 2003 State

Border Régime Treaty coordinates.

The Court concludes that the 1949 instruments did not establish an endpoint

beyond the 12-mile arc around Serpents’ Island, merely defining a state border

following this arc without specifying a final point. It determines that the endpoint of

the State border was fixed by the 2003 Treaty, which marked where the

territorial seas of Romania and Ukraine intersect. The Court finds no evidence in the

1949 agreements or subsequent treaties of a boundary dividing the territorial sea of

Ukraine from the continental shelf and exclusive economic zone of Romania.

Consequently, it concludes that there was no maritime boundary between the

two countries before these proceedings, beyond the 12-mile limit of the territorial

sea.

4. Why is it important to precisely define the relevant coasts and the

relevant maritime areas?

Precisely defining the relevant coasts and maritime areas is crucial for several

reasons. First, it establishes maritime entitlements by determining which parts of

a state's coastline generate rights to areas like the continental shelf and the

exclusive economic zone (EEZ). These entitlements are based on the principle that the

land projects its rights to the sea. Second, it helps resolve overlapping claims

between states by delineating the boundaries of their respective maritime zones.

This ensures a clear and equitable basis for drawing delimitation lines that separate

the maritime zones of each state. Third, it facilitates equity and proportionality in

the delimitation process by comparing the lengths of relevant coasts to the

maritime areas each state would gain. This comparison helps assess whether the

delimitation line is fair and reasonable, preventing one state from gaining an unfair

advantage over the other. Fourth, it avoids disproportionality by checking the

ratios between coastal lengths and maritime areas attributed to each state. This

ensures that the delimitation is legally sound and fair. Fifth, it ensures legal and

geographical accuracy in the delimitation process by reflecting the realities of

international law principles and geographical features. Finally, it minimizes conflicts

with third parties by identifying and considering the potential entitlements of

neighboring countries with overlapping claims. This helps prevent future disputes and

respects the rights of all concerned parties.

Part III – The delimitation

5. Please define, in general terms, how the ICJ proceeds to the

delimitation of the maritime areas pertaining to the two countries.

When tasked with delimiting maritime areas such as the continental shelf or exclusive

economic zones between two countries, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) follows

a structured process. First, it establishes a provisional delimitation line using

adjacent

geometrically objective methods suitable for the area's geography. For

coasts , an equidistance line is drawn unless specific reasons prevent its use. For

opposite coasts , a median line is typically employed. These lines are constructed

from the most appropriate coastal points closest to the area being delimited.

The ICJ considers factors such as physical geography and coastal points selected by

the involved parties. Ultimately, the goal is to achieve an equitable delimitation

that respects international law and considers the interests of both countries involved.

6. What are the different phases of such delimitation exercise?

The delimitation exercise undertaken by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) involves

several distinct phases:

A) Establishing the Provisional Equidistance Line: The first stage is to draw a

provisional equidistance line between the adjacent coasts of the involved countries.

This line is based solely on geometrical criteria and objective data, without

considering any relevant circumstances.

B) Adjustment for Equitable Solution: In the second stage, the Court considers

whether there are factors necessitating adjustments to the provisional equidistance

line to achieve an equitable outcome. This may involve applying equitable

principles or relevant circumstances to the delimitation process, especially when

multiple jurisdictions overlap.

C) Verification of Equitable Result: At the third and final stage, the Court verifies

that the delimitation line, whether adjusted or not, does not lead to an

inequitable result. This entails ensuring that there is no significant

disproportionality between the ratio of coastal lengths and the ratio of the relevant

maritime areas of each state relative to the delimitation line.

7. What is the role of the provisional equidistance line? How is it

drawn?

The provisional equidistance line plays a crucial role in the delimitation of maritime

boundaries between two countries. It serves as an initial reference line drawn based