International Court Of Arbitration Decisions Supporting The EEZ Agreement Signed Between Tur-Lib

[Test7]

2009 ROMANIA-UKRAINE CASE​

ROMANIA AND UKRAINE APPLIED TO THE INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE IN ORDER THE DISPUTE BETWEEN TWO STATES TO BE SOLVED ON DELIMITATION OF MARITIME JURISDICTION AREAS.


IN ITS JUDGEMENT THE COURT DECIDED THAT ‘THE SERPENT” ISLAND CANNOT GENERATE MARITIME ZONES BEYOND TERRITORIAL WATERS BREADTH IN DELIMITATION OF CONTINENTAL SHELF AND EEZ.

1990 ERITREA-YEMEN CASE​

ERITREA AND YEMEN APPLIED TO THE INTERNATIONAL COURT OF ARBITRATION ON THE DISPUTE OVER THE SOVEREIGNTY OF SOME ISLANDS, ISLETS AND ROCKS IN THE RED SEA.

IN ITS JUDGEMENT THE COURT DECIDED THAT MENTIONED ISLANDS CANNOT GENERATE MARITIME ZONES BEYOND TERRITORIAL WATERS BREADTH IN DELIMITATION AND THOSE ISLANDS WERE IGNORED IN DRAWING OF THE EQUIDISTANCE LINE BETWEEN THE TWO STATES.

1982 CANADA-FRANCE (SAINT PIERRE & MIQUELON) CASE​

UPON DISTANCE WAS ACCEPTED AS A FACTOR IN DETERMINING THE BREADTH OF THE CONTINENTAL SHELF, THE ISSUE OF DELIMITATION LINE TO LIMIT OR PREVENT THE OPEN SEA ACCESS OF THE COASTAL STATE HAS APPEARED.

IN THE DECISION OF THE ICJ IN THIS CASE, IT IS EMPHASIZED THAT CUT OFF OF STATES’ MARITIME JURISDICTION AREAS, WHICH IS A COMPLEMENTARY PART OF ITS MAINLAND, BY OTHER STATES’ MARITIME AREAS IS INCONSISTENT WITH THE EQUITABILITY PRINCIPLE.

IN THIS CONTEXT, ICJ DID NOT GIVE MARITIME AREAS EXTENDING SOUTHWEST TO THE FRENCH ISLANDS OFF THE COAST OF CANADA. IN ITS JUSTIFICATION, ICJ STATES THAT SUCH SITUATION LEADS FRENCH ISLANDS UP TO CUT OFF CANADIAN SHORES’ MARITIME AREAS.

IN ITS JUDGEMENT THE COURT DECIDED NOT TO ASSIGN FULL EFFECT TO THE FRENCH ISLANDS OFF THE COAST OF CANADA AS MAINLANDS.

1992 LIBYA-MALTA CASE​

LIBYA AND MALTA, APPLIED TO THE INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE IN ORDER THE DISPUTE BETWEEN TWO STATES TO BE SOLVED ON DELIMITATION OF MARITIME JURISDICTION AREAS. IN THIS CASE, MALTA CLAIMED THAT THE EQUIDISTANCE LINE SHOULD BE CONSIDERED ON THE DELIMITATION. LIBYA CLAIMED THAT MALTA SHOULD BE GIVEN LESS MARITIME JURISDICTION AREAS AS MALTA WAS AN ISLAND STATE.


IN ITS JUDGEMENT THE COURT DECIDED TO ALLOCATE SMALLER MARITIME JURISDICTION AREA THAN CLAIMED BY MALTA IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PRINCIPLE OF EQUITABILITY AND CORRECTED THE MEDIAN LINE IN FAVOR OF LIBYA, A COASTAL STATE, BY SHIFTING THE MEDIAN LINE 18 NM NORTH TOWARDS MALTA.

1969 NORTH SEA CASE​

DURING THIS CASE HOLLAND AND DENMARK CLAIMED THAT THE EQUIDISTANCE METHOD SHOULD BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT, AND GERMANY CLAIMED THAT THE DISPUTE SHOULD BE SOLVED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE APPLICATION OF EQUITABLE PRINCIPLES SINCE EQUIDISTANCE METHOD COULD NOT PROVIDE EQUITABLE SOLUTION OF THE DISPUTE. FURTHERMORE, GERMANY STATES ITS MAINLAND SHOULD NOT BE CUT OFF.


IN ITS JUDGEMENT THE COURT STATED THAT APPLICATION OF THE PRINCIPLE OF EQUIDISTANCE WAS NOT AN OBLIGATION AND ADDITIONALLY, RESHAPING OF THE GEOGRAPHY WAS NOT POSSIBLE.

FINALLY, GERMANY HAS BEEN ALLOCATED MORE MARITIME JURISDICTION AREAS THAN CLAIMED BY HOLLAND AND DENMARK.

1977 UK-FRANCE CASE​

FRANCE CLAIMED THAT ART.6 IN 1958 CONTINENTAL SHELF CONVENTION COULD NOT BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT OWING TO FRANCE’S RESTRICTIONS IN THE ENGLISH CHANNEL SECTOR, AND ADDITIONAL CLAIMS STATING THAT THE SHORE WERE NEITHER OPPOSITE NOR ADJACENT IN THE ATLANTIC SECTOR. FRANCE ALSO CLAIMED THAT THE NATURAL PROLONGATION, AS FAR AS APPLICABLE, SHOULD BE CONSIDERED FOR DELIMITATION.

UK CLAIMED THAT THE PRINCIPLE OF EQUIDISTANCE SHOULD BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT FOR THE DELIMITATION. ARBITORS DECIDED TO IMPLEMENT CUSTOMARY LAW IN THE SECTOR OF ENGLISH CHANNEL WHERE FRANCE RESTRICTIONS WERE IN EFFECT AND ART. 6 IN THE ATLANTIC SECTOR. WHILE DETERMINING THE PROCEDURE, ARBITORS ALSO STATED THAT THE SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES IN ART. 6 WERE NOT EXEMPTIONS AND THIS ARTICLE WOULD BE IMPLEMENTED AS A COMBINATION OF EQUIDISTANCE/SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES.

IN ITS JUDGEMENT THE COURT DECIDED THAT THE ISLANDS, POSSESSED BY UK, ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE MID-CHANNEL MEDIAN LINE, WOULD BE GIVEN THE MARITIME JURISDICTION AREAS NOT MORE THAN THEIR TERRITORIAL WATERS.

1984 LIBYA-TUNISIA CASE​

BOTH STATES CLAIMED THAT THE NATURAL PROLONGATION SHOULD BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT FOR THE DELIMITATION. BUT LIBYA CLAIMED THAT NATURAL PROLONGATION OF LAND MASS, WHILE TUNISIA CLAIMED COASTAL STATE’S NATURAL PROLONGATION.


IN ITS JUDGEMENT THE COURT DECIDED TO DRAW A LINE, PERPENDICULAR TO THE SHORE LINE WHILE DETERMINING THE MARITIME BORDERS OF THESE STATES WHICH HAS ADJACENT MARITIME BORDERS. AS A SECOND SECTOR OFF THE COAST, ANOTHER LINE THAT BREAKS TOWARD THE LIBYA WAS DRAWN AND THIS LINE WAS ASSIGNED AS THE CONTINENTAL SHELF BORDER. FOR THIS SECOND LINE KERKENNAH ISLAND WAS TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT.

COURT DECIDED TO GIVE HALF EFFECT TO THE KERKENNAH ISLAND AND NO EFFECT WAS GIVEN TO THE CERBE ISLAND SO THAT PARALLEL STRUCTURE OF THE OFF THE COAST LINE COULD BE PROVIDED.

AGREEMENT (DRAFT) BETWEEN THE REPUBLIC OF TURKEY AND LIBYA ON DELIMITATION OF THE MARITIME JURISDICTION AREAS IN THE MEDITERRANEAN,

……………….. 2012


The Republic of Turkey and Libyan Arab Republic, hereinafter referred to as “the Parties”,

Desiring to further develop the existing cooperation based on the Cooperation on Maritime and Merchant Shipping Agreement between the Republic of Turkey and the Libya, signed at Istanbul on 30 May 1975;


Having Decided to determine the boundary of their respective maritime areas in the Mediterranean taking into account all relevant circumstances to establish a precise and equitable delimitation in which the Parties exercise sovereignty, sovereign rights and/or jurisdiction in accordance with applicable rules of international law;

Taking into account the willingness of the Parties to achieve just and mutually acceptable solutions to the above mentioned issues through constructive negotiations, and in the spirit of good friendly relations;


Convinced that this Agreement will contribute to the strengthening of the relations and encourage further cooperation between the Parties in the interest of their peoples;

Have agreed as follows:

Article 1

The boundary of the continental shelf and the exclusive economic zone

1. The boundary of the continental shelf and the exclusive economic zone between the Republic of Turkey and the Libya in the Mediterrenean begins at “Point A” (34°34’41.5″N- 025°027’24.6″E) and ends at the Point B (34°09’07.9″N-026°39’06.3″E).

As for the drawing of the delimitation line of the continental shelf and the exclusive economic

zone further;

-to the west-northwest direction from Point A 34°34’41.5″‘N and 025°27’24.6″E

-and to the east-southeast direction from the Point B 34°09’07.9″N and 026°39’06.3″E,

the Parties have agreed that such a drawing will be finalized later at subsequent negotiations which will be held at a suitable time.

1. The boundary of the continental shelf and the Exclusive Economic Zone determined in Article 1, paragraph 1, of this Agreement is shown on the Turkish maritime chart N 308 (ed.1973), scale 1:1. 102 000 (Annex I). The coordinates are shown on the annexed chart in its coordinate system. The geographical coordinates referred to in Article 1, paragraph 1, of this Agreement are expressed in terms of the World Geodetic System 1984 (WGS’84).

1. Base points coordinates that is used to determine equidistance line are shown in Annex

Article 2

Annexes to the Agreement

The Annex to this Agreement constitutes its integral part.

Article 3

Registration

Upon its entry into force, this Agreement shall be registered with the Secretariat of the United Nations pursuant to Article 102 of the Charter of the United Nations.

Article 4

Settlement of disputes

1. Any dispute between the Parties arising out of the interpretation or implementation of this Agreement shall be settled through diplomatic channels in a spirit of mutual understanding and cooperation in accordance with Article 33 of the Charter of the United Nations.
2. In case there are natural resources extending from the economic exclusive zone of one party to the exclusive economic zone of the other, the two parties shall cooperate in order to reach an agreement on the modalities of the exploitation of such resources.
3. If either of the two parties is engaged in negotiations aimed at the delimitation of its exclusive economic zone with other State, that party, before reaching a final agreement with the other State, shall notify and consult the other party, if such delimitation is in connection with above mentioned coordinates in Article 1.

Article 5

Entry into force

This Agreement shall be subject to ratification according to the respective constitutional procedures of the Parties. It shall enter into force on the date of the exchange of the instruments of ratification.

Signed at ……………………..on…………….. 2012 in two original copies in the English language.

ANNEX 1

TURKISH MARITIME CHART NO 308: MAP OF THE MEDITERRANEAN WITH THE BOUNDARY OF THE CONTINENTAL SHELF AND THE EXCLUSIVE ECONOMIC ZONE BETWEEN THE REPUBLIC OF TURKEY AND THE LIBYA. (ANNEX NOT ATTACHED)

ANNEX 2

BASE POINTS COORDINATES LIST.

SKETCH MAP

​

RELEASABLE ONLY TO TURKEY/LIBYA

https://baudegs.com/genel/examples-...ne-agreement-signed-between-turkey-and-libya/

 

[MMM-E]

Greece doesnt have rights in the Eastern Mediterranean .. Greek Islands dont have 200 nm of Continental Shelf ....... only 12 nm of territorial waters .. nothing else

and Egypt doesnt have right for the deal with Greece .... Greece and Egypt have no mutual sea border.
( but France,Greece,Egypt,The Uae and Greek Cypriot side have forest law , instead of international law)