The 2006 Barbados/Trinidad and Tobago award: A landmark in compulsory jurisdiction and equitable maritime boundary delimitation

International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law

Volumn 22, Issue 1, 2007, Pages 7-60

  Kwiatkowska, Barbara ^a,b  

^a UTRECHT UNIVERSITY   (Netherlands)

^b UTRECHT UNIVERSITY   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

BOUNDARY DELIMITATION; BOUNDARY DISPUTE; BOUNDARY LINE; CONTINENTAL SHELF; EXCLUSIVE ECONOMIC ZONE; INTERNATIONAL LAW; LAW OF THE SEA; LEGISLATION; MARITIME BOUNDARY;

ATLANTIC ISLANDS; ATLANTIC OCEAN; BARBADOS; CARIBBEAN ISLANDS; LESSER ANTILLES; TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO;

EID: 34547986316     PISSN: 09273522     EISSN: 15718085     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1163/157180807781475245     Document Type: Article

References (476)

1. See Statement of ICJ President Rosalyn Higgins on the 10th ITLOS Anniversary, 29 September 2006, at www.itlos.org and her Statement to the 61st UN General Assembly (UNGA), 26 October 2006, at www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2006/ ga10523.doc.htm & www.icj-cij.org/icjwww/ipresscom/iprstats.htm; Statement of ICJ President Stephen M. Schwebel to the 54th UNGA, id., and UN Doc.A/54/PV39,26 October 1999, at 1-5;
2. ICJ Yearbook 1999-2000 282-288 (No. 54), welcoming the creation of specialized international tribunals as making "international law more effective" and reiterating that: "A greater range of international legal fora is likely to mean that more disputes are submitted to international judicial settlement. The more international adjudication there is, the more there is likely to be; the 'judicial habit' may stimulate healthy imitation;" as analyzed by B.H. Oxman, Comments on the "Horizontal" Growth of International Courts, in The Legalization of International Relations, Proceedings of the 96th ASIL Annual Meeting, Washington D.C., 13-16 March 2002 373, 375-376 (2002);
3. B. Kwiatkowska, The Law of the Sea Related Cases in the International Court of Justice During the Presidency of Judge Stephen M. Schwebel (1997-2000) and Beyond, 2 The Global Community Yearbook of International Law and Jurisprudence 27, 32-34 (2002 Vol. I) at www.oceanalaw.com/ main_product_details.asp?ID-298, revised as of 3 November 2006 at www.law.uu.nl/nilos - Publications, Online Papers;
4. R. Barnes, D. Freestone and D.M. Ong, The Law of the Sea: Progress and Prospects, in D. Freestone, R. Barnes and D. Ong, eds., The Law of the Sea: Progress and Prospects 1, 14-15, 26-27 (Oxford 2006) at www.oup.co.uk/ catalogue/?ci-9780199299614, appreciating the analysis of a "judicial habit" concept by B. Kwiatkowska, The World Court and Peaceful Settlement of Oceans Disputes, id., at 433-457.
5. See the analysis of all these settled and pending cases by Kwiatkowska, The World Court (2006), supra note 1 and see Section 4.2. on An Appraisal of Modern Application of the Law and Process of Equitable Maritime Boundary Delimitation Infra Legem in the present article, infra. On the 2006 Barbados/Trinidad and Tobago Award's being - ex aequo with the 2001 Qatar v. Bahrain (Merits) Judgment - the best of all judicial and arbitral decisions concerning maritime boundary delimitation, see infra note 19.
6. See infra notes 33-43.
7. Cameroon v. Nigeria; Equatorial Guinea Intervening Land and Maritime Boundary (Merits) Judgment, ICJ Reports 2002, 303 and President Guillaume's Statement upon rendering the Judgment of 10 October 2002 at www.icj-cij.org; the maritime boundary delimitation is dealt with in the Judgment's paras. 226-307 and dispositif pain. 325.IV;
8. P.H.F. Bekker, "The 2002 Cameroon v. Nigeria; Equatorial Guinea Intervening Judgment," (2002) 97 American Journal of International Law (AJIL) 387-398;
9. J.R. Crook, 'The 2002 Judicial Activity of the ICJ," id., at 354-355;
10. J.G. Merrills (2003), 52 International and Comparative Law Quarterly (ICLQ) 788-797;
11. B. Kwiatkowska, "The Contribution of the 2002 Cameroon v. Nigeria; Equatorial Guinea Intervening Judgment of the International Court of Justice to Equitable Maritime Boundary Delimitation, (2004) 17 Hague Yearbook of International Law 95-135;
12. Kwiatkowska, "ICJ President Schwebel's Triennium" (2002), as updated on 3 November 2006, supra note 1, at 50-53 and 64-70, including references in her note 178 therein to: United Nations Fifth Summit on 12 June 2006 held with UNSG Kofi Annan 〈www.un.org/News/ossg/sg/index. shtml〉 in New York
13. and see the news story 'Cameroon/Nigeria Agreement on Nigeria's Withdrawal from Bakassi Peninsula and Other Measures Completing Implementation of the 2002 ICJ Judgment' [supra, this note] of 12 June 2006 at www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=18825&Cr=cameroon&Cr1=nigeria and the Agreement's text at www.un.org/unowa/cnmc/preleas/pr.htm [www.un.org/unowa/index.htm] & www.cmeroon-info.net/cmi_show_news.php?id= 17737,
14. see also UNSG Kofi Annan's Statement at www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2006/ afr1397.doc.htm, www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2006/sgsm10511.doc.htm & www.un.org/apps/sg/sgstats.asp?nid=2083 and his Press Conference www.un.org/apps/sg/offthecuff.asp?nid=884, and the Cameroon/Nigeria Joint Communiqué of 12 June 2006 at www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2006/sg2113.doc. htm and British Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) Minister Lord Triesman's Statement at www.gnn.gov.uk/Content/Detail.asp?ReleaseID=207343&NewsAreaID- 2;
15. see further news story 'Nigeria Hands Cameroon Formal Control of Bakassi Peninsula under UN-Sponsored Deal' of 14 August 2006 at www.un.org/apps/news/ story.asp?NewsID=19509&Cr=cameroon& Cr1-nigeria & http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/4789647.stm; UNSG Letter to the UNSC President, UN Doc. S/2006/778, and news story 'UNSG Kofi Annan Hails Steady Cameroon/Nigeria Demarcation Progress' of 6 October 2006 at www.un.org/apps/ news/story.asp?NewsID=20163&Cr=Nigeria&Cr1=Cameroon. On UNSG Kofi Annan's Visits to the ICJ, see infra note 18.
16. Note that according to the Qatar v. Bahrain Maritime Delimitation and Territorial Questions (Merits) Judgment, ICJ Reports 2001, 76, para. 113, "the word arbitration, for purposes of public international law" means "the settlement of differences between States by judges of their own choice, and on the basis of respect for law." On similarities and differences between arbitral and judicial proceedings,
17. see S.M. Schwebel, Justice in International Law - Selected Writings of Judge Stephen M. Schwebel, Chapter 12: Some Aspects of International Law in Arbitration Between States and Aliens, 196, 197-199 and Chapter 14: The Prospects for International Arbitration: Inter-State Disputes, at 223, 228-229 (Cambridge 1994) at www.cambridge.org/uk/catalogue.asp?isbn-0521462843;
18. S.M. Schwebel, The Law Applicable in International Arbitration, in Proceedings of the XIIth International Arbitration Congress of the International Council for Commercial Arbitration 562, 565-566 (Vienna 1994);
19. J.G. Merrills, International Dispute Settlement 88-120 (Cambridge 1998) and J.G. Merrills, "The Contribution of the PCA to International Law and to the Settlement of Disputes by Peaceful Means," in The Permanent Court of Arbitration: International Arbitration and Dispute Resolution, Summaries of Awards, Settlement Agreements and Reports 3-27 (Kluwer 1999);
20. Sir Robert Jennings, "The Differences Between Conducting a Case in the ICJ and in an Ad Hoc Arbitration Tribunal - An Inside View," in N. Ando, ed., Liber Amicorum Judge Shigeru Oda 893-910 (2002);
21. Judge Stephen M. Schwebel's "Reflections on International Adjudication and Arbitration," in Yale Law School Alumni Reading Materials of 8 October 2004 at page 2 at www.law.yale.edu/outside/html/alumni_affairs/ alum-wkndreadings.htm linking to www.law.yale.edu/outside/pdf/Alumni_Affairs/ Law-Reflections_Schwebel.pdf, pp. 43-50.
22. Message from the International Court of Justice on the Occasion of the 20th Anniversary of the Opening for Signature of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, conveyed to the 57th UNGA on behalf of then ICJ President Gilbert Guillaume by one of the LOSCs principal architects, Judge Raymond Ranjeva, ICJ Press Release No.2002/38, 10 December 2002, at www.icj-cij.org/icjwww/ipresscom/ipreven.htm; UN Doc. A/57/PV.70, 9 December 2002, at 18-19.
23. See also the Message from the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea of 9 December 2002, conveyed on behalf of then ITLOS President Nelson by another of the principal LOSC architects, Judge Alexander Yankov, id., at 19-21 and www.itlos.org. Note that after the 1997 MV Saiga (Prompt Release) Judgment, 37 ILM 360 (1998), the parties sought assistance of then ITLOS President Mensah to establish the Annex VII MV Saiga Tribunal, but thanks to his diplomatic skills, the action was discontinued and the case was transferred to the ITLOS, which adjudicated it in the 1999 MV Saiga (Jurisdiction and Merits) Judgment, 38 ILM 1383 (1999). On the 2000 Annex VII Southern Bluefin Tuna (Jurisdiction and Admissibility) Award (ICSID) and the Annex VII Ireland v. UK Mox Plant Arbitration (PCA), coupled with the 2003 OSPAR Ireland v. UK Mox Plant Award (PCA) and the 2006 European Commission v. Ireland Mox Plant Judgment (ECJ),
24. see infra notes 33-43. On the 2005 Annex VII Malaysia v. Singapore Award (PCA), including the Settlement Agreement,
25. see infra note 34. For an analysis of the 2002 ICJ Message [supra, this note], in the context of the Annex VII Arbitrations and Judge Schwebel's concept of "judicial habit" [supra note 1],
26. see B. Kwiatkowska, "Equitable Maritime Boundary Delimitation, as Exemplified in the Work of the International Court of Justice During the Presidency of Judge Gilbert Guillaume (2000-2003) and Beyond," (2005) 5 The Global Community Yearbook of International Law and Jurisprudence 51, 85-92, 164-171 at www.oceanalaw.com/main_product_details.asp7ID=417;
27. and Kwiatkowska, The World Court (2006), supra note 1.
28. It seems therefore inefficiently anomalous that the website of the UN Division for Ocean Affairs and the Law of the Sea (UNDOALOS) does not link to the PCA in the same way as it does to the ICJ and the ITLOS, though the bureaucratic reason therefor is likely to be the fact that the PCA does not form a part of the United Nations system. For the otherwise excellent UNDOALOS website, see www.un.org/Depts/los & http://untreaty.un.org/ola/.
29. On the contention of Barbados that Trinidad's Prime Minister Manning characterized the maritime boundary dispute as "intractable" (especially in the context of Barbados's opposition to Trinidad and Tobago's maximalist claim in the Eastern sector, see infra notes 75, 95-97, 100), and challenged Barbados to take it to arbitration, statements that Trinidad and Tobago denied were ever made,
30. see 2006 Barbados/Trinidad and Tobago Award, paras. 56, 68, 75, 100;
31. Barbados's Reply, paras. 24-32 and Hearings Day 1, 36-66 [Examination of Witness Teresa Marshall, 17 October 2005], 74 [Counsel Reisman], Day 2, 49 [CoAgent Volterra, 18 October], Day 5, 10 [Reisman, 24 October], Day 6, 61 [Agent Mottley, 25 October 2005].
32. United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea of 10 December 1982 [in force: 16 November 1994], 1833 UNTS 397, reprinted in 21 ILM 1261 (1982). For the current status of the Convention and the Agreement for the Implementation of Its Part XI,
33. see UNDOALOS website, supra note 7. On the prospective U.S. choice of Annex VII Arbitration,
34. see Message from the U.S. President to the Senate with Commentary of 7 October 1994, 34 ILM 1393, 1399 (1995)
35. and The Law of the Sea Convention and U.S Policy 8, 13-14 (4 August 2005) at www.ncseonline.org/NLE/CRSreports/05aug/IB95010.pdf.
36. See also Roundtable Discussion: Should the United States Join the Convention? If Not, Why Not? If So, What Are the Prospects?, Chaired by former ICJ President Stephen M. Schwebel, with the participation of U.S. Ambassador David A. Balton, John Noyes and Edwin Willamson at the ASIL Symposium in Remembrance of Louis Sohn: The Law of the Sea in the Twenty-First Century, George Washington University Law School, Washington D.C., 24 October 2006, at www.asil.org/pdfs/sohnprogram1.pdf, of which proceedings will be published in 2007, in the George Washington International Law Review. On the importance attached by the United States to the CLCS,
37. see infra note 53 and on the possible new Gulf of Maine case,
38. see infra notes 57, 113-114. On concerns of the United States that its ratification of the LOSC could harm the ability to board ships engaged in the transportation of terrorists or weapons of mass destruction (WMD),
39. see Press Release of the U.S. National Center for Public Policy Research of 10 August 2006 at www.nationalcenter.org/PRNPA542 LawoftheSeaTreaty0806.html and the Report at www.nationalcenter.org/NPA542 Lawof theSeaTreaty.html; Proliferation Security Initiative at www.state.gov/t/np/c10390.htm. Generally,
40. see B.H. Oxman, The Territorial Temptation: A Siren Song at Sea (2006), 100 AJIL 830-851. The author wishes to voice her preference for the acronym UNCLOS-widely used in the UN documents and decisions of Annex VII and other tribunals - over traditional acronyms "LOS Convention" or LOSC.
41. For CVs of Arbitrators, see President Stephen M. Schwebel - ICJ Yearbook 1999-2000 49-50 (No.54); www.icj-cij.org/icjwww/ igeneralinformation/icvjudge/Schwebel.html and ICJ Presidents at www.icj-cij.org/icjwww/ipresscom/iprstats.htm; Johns Hopkins University at www.sais-jhu.edu/programs/ir/intlaw/index.html & www.willamette.edu/wucl/ news/2003_04/16.htm; Transnational Dispute Management's Editors at www.transnational-dispute-management.com/editors/content.htm; Essex Chambers at www.essexcourt.net/uploads/cvs/Schwebel,_Stephen.pdf;
42. Judge Schwebel's Justice in International Law, supra note 5 and his other works and ICJ Opinions quoted supra note 1 and infra notes 12, 17, 20, 36, 39-40, 42, 44, 47, 56-57, 69-71, 75, 78-79, 81, 116 and 118;
43. Sir Arthur Watts KCMG QC - CV at www.20essexst.com/bar/q_watts_a/ watts.htm & www.dow.cam.ac.uk/www_server/Fellows/A.D._Watts.html;
44. Sir Robert Jennings QC and Sir Arthur Watts KCMG QC, Oppenheim 's International Law, Vols I-II (9th Edition 1992);
45. Sir Arthur Watts, The International Law Commission 1949-1998, Vols I-III (1999);
46. Ian Brownlie CBE QC - CV at www.black-stonechambers.com/cv.asp? StaffID=25;
47. I. Brownlie CBE QC, Principles of Public International Law (6th Edition 2003);
48. Vaughan A. Lowe - CV at www.essexcourt.net/index.cfm?do= viewBarrister&barristerID=47;
49. and the leading textbook by R.R. Churchill and A.V. Lowe, The Law of the Sea (Manchester 1999);
50. Francisco Orrego Vicuña - CV at www.rzuser.uniheidelberg,de/ ~p00/english/cv_orrego.html, EC/Chile Swordfish case, infra note 38 and his works quoted infra notes 51 and 105;
51. Hydrographer D.H. Gray and PCA Registrar Anne Joyce assisted by Dane Ratliff. On the busiest docket in the ICJ history of 22 new cases during President Schwebel's triennium (1997-2000), as continued with 6 additional new cases during President Guillaume's triennium (2000-2003), when three major (Qatar v. Bahrain, Indonesia/Malaysia and Cameroon v. Nigeria; Equatorial Guinea) cases - of which various phases were previously settled by President Schwebel - were crowned by Judgments on the merits,
52. see Kwiatkowska, ICJ President Schwebel's Triennium (2002), supra note 1, at 27-75, updated as of 2006;
53. and ICJ President Guillaume's Triennium (2005), supra note 6, at 51-171.
54. See also Introductory Remarks in this article supra and references infra notes 11-12, 56, 70, 72.
55. The Barbados Team included: Agent Mrs. Mia A. Mottley QC, Co-Agent Robert Volterra, Counsel and Advocates Sir Elihu Lauterpacht CBE QC [founder and honorary Director of the Cambridge Research Center, see at www.lcil.cam.ac.uk/about the centre/sir elihu lauterpacht.php & www.20essexst.com/bar/q_lauterpacht_e/lauterpacht.htm],
56. Michael Reisman, Jan Paulsson [www.transnational-dispute-management.com/ news/news_detail.htm?v0=36],
57. Sir Henry Forde QC, Stephen Fieta and other experts, while the Trinidad and TobagoTeam included: Agent John Jeremie, Co-Agents John Almeida and Laurie Watt, Counsel James Crawford SC [currently the Cambridge Center's Director, see at http://lcil.law.cam.ac.uk/people/directors_profiles. php?profile=james_crawford], Christopher Greenwood CMG QC, Samuel Wordsworth and other experts. Note that while previously Counsel Lauterpacht, Reisman, Volterra and Paulsson represented Bahrain in the Qatar v. Bahrain case, ICJ Reports 2001, 49, Counsel Crawford - along with then Counsel Ian Brownlie CBE QC and Sir Arthur Watts KCMG QC - represented Nigeria in the Cameroon v. Nigeria; Equatorial Guinea case, ICJ Reports 2002, 303, and Crawford and Watts - together with L. Yves Fortier CC QC (Judge ad hoc of Bahrain and Colombia, infra notes 17, 19, 56) and G. Hafner - were the members of the Annex VII Mox Plant Tribunal presided over by former ITLOS President Mensah, and that they all also pleaded in numerous other cases before the ICJ, ITLOS and Arbitral Tribunals. In the Malaysia v. Singapore case, infra note 34, in which Sir Arthur Watts served as Arbitrator, Sir Elihu Lauterpacht served as Malaysia's Counsel and Michael Reisman and Vaughan Lowe as Singapore's Counsel. On the involvement of Arbitrator Brownlie and Counsel Sir Elihu Lauterpacht in the Libya/Malta case,
58. see infra note 70;
59. on the membership of Counsel Sir Elihu Lauterpacht, Reisman, President Schwebel and Arbitrator Watts in the UN Eritrea/Ethiopia Commission,
60. see infra note 81;
61. and on the involvement of President Schwebel and Arbitrators Watts and Brownlie in Nicaragua v. Colombia (Preliminary Objections) case,
62. see infra note 56.
63. See, e.g., the world's biggest (over US $ 50 billion) pending GML (formerly Menatep) v. Russian Federation Arbitration, President L. Yves Fortier CC QC, Arbitrators Stephen M. Schwebel and Daniel M. Price, news story of 26 July 2005 at www.akm.ru/eng/news/2005/july/26/ns1510838.htm; 6 September 2006 at www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,29390-2342684.00.html, an Arbitration which was instituted under the 1994 European Energy Charter, 34 ILM 360 (1995) & www.encharter.org/index.jsp, that was not ratified by Russia, infra note 42; ICSID at www.worldbank.org/icsid & www.investmentclaims.com; LCIA at www.lcia-arbitration.com; World's Top 10 Arbitrators at www.americanlawyer.com/focus-europe/scorecard0605.html;
64. see also Investment Treaty Forum (ITF) under the patronage of Judges Rosalyn Higgins and Yves Fortier at www.biicl.org/itf/; TDM at www.transnational-dispute-management.com/.
65. On such joinders occurring in the practice of the ICJ and other courts in cases involving the reasonable probability of upholding jurisdiction, see Barbados/Trinidad and Tobago Hearings Day 1, 22-23 [Counsel Sir Elihu Lauterpacht, 17 October 2005] and, e.g., Saint Vincent and the Grenadines v. Guinea MV Saiga (Jurisdiction and Merits) Judgment (ITLOS Case No.2), 38 ILM 1383 (1999), Democratic Republic of Congo v. Belgium Arrest Warrant of 11 April 2000 (Jurisdiction and Merits) Judgment, ICJ Reports 2002, 3;
66. Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Jurisdiction and Merits) Judgement, President Rosalyn Higgins, ICJ Reports 2007;
67. and the 2007 Annex VII Guyana/Suriname Maritime Delimitation (Jurisdiction and Merits) Award, President L.D.M. Nelson, PCA at www.pca-cpa.org/ENGLISH/RPC & http://cgxenergy.ca/news.html. For examples of decisions confined to jurisdictional issues which were not upheld,
68. see the 2000 Southern Bluefin Tuna Award and the ICJ Judgments quoted infra, notes 20 and 25. Notwithstanding the joinder of all Preliminary Objections to the Merits, every aspect of the numerous jurisdictional and likewise substantive issues remained notably contentious until the closing day of the Barbados/Trinidad and Tobago Oral Hearings. See Day 7, 10 [Counsel Greenwood, 27 October 2005].
69. The Tribunal's Rules and Orders Nos 1-4 were placed directly on the website of the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA), Peace Palace, The Hague, which agreed to serve as the Registrar, at www.pca-cpa.org/ENGLISH/RPC. After the Tribunal delivered its Barbados/Trinidad and Tobago Maritime Delimitation (Jurisdiction and Merits) Award (UN Law of the Sea Annex VII Arbitral Tribunal, 11 April 2006, President Stephen M. Schwebel), the written pleadings (Memorial, Counter-Memorial, Reply and Rejoinder) and the transcripts of the Hearings (Days 1 to 8, 17-28 October 2005), as well as the Award itself, have also been posted on the PCA website. For the Award's text, see also 45 ILM 800 (2006) at www.asil.org/resources/ilm.html;
70. Barbados at www.acutevision.com/web/gismedia/index.php? categoryid=1. For the Award's dispositif and maps,
71. see UN Law of the Sea Bulletin 99-106 (2006 No.61). For a summary of the 2006 Award's decisions,
72. see the main text accompanying infra notes 23-30;
73. ASIL/ILIB of 28 April 2006 at www.asil.org/ilib/2006/04/ ilib060428.htm;
74. and UN Secretary-General's Report on Oceans and the Law of the Sea, Doc. A/61/63/Add.1, paras. 175-176 (2006) at www.un.org/Depts/los. For an analysis of the 2006 Award,
75. see Session 4 on "From Jan Mayen Judgment to Barbados/Trinidad and Tobago Award" (26 June 2006), IBRU Workshop on Options for Unlocking Maritime Boundary Disputes, Paris, 26-28 June 2006 at http://www-ibru.dur.ac.uk/workshops/2006/maritime.html; Lectures of B. Kwiatkowska on "The 2006 Barbados/Trinidad and Tobago Award" (11 July 2006) at the 11th Rhodes Academy of Oceans Law and Policy, Rhodes, Greece, 2-21 July 2006 at www.virginia.edu/colp/pdf/DraftSchedule.pdf;
76. B. Kwiatkowska, The 2006 Barbados/Trinidad and Tobago Case Report, 101 AJIL 149-157 (2007) and her Tribute in Remembrance of Louis B. Sohn at the ASIL Symposium held on 24 October 2006, supra note 9;
77. Yoshifumi Tanaka, The Barbados/Trinidad and Tobago Case Report, 21 International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law 523-533 (2006 No.4) at www.brill.nl/product.asp?ID=18253.
78. 2006 Barbados/Trinidad and Tobago Award, paras 10, 349, noting the dismissal in mid-2004 of neighbouring Guyana's request for access to then confidential written pleadings, and infra note 68.
79. See also works by ICJ Presidents Jennings and Schwebel and those by Merrills quoted supra note 5, comparing judicial and arbitral proceedings and stressing the well-established practice of not allowing third-state intervention in arbitral proceedings.
80. 2006 Barbados/Trinidad and Tobago Award, paras. 11-18 and 106, referring to "self-help" by Barbados with respect to Trinidad's four oil blocks, Barbados's Memorial, paras. 89-91 and Trinidad's Rejoinder, paras. 171-180 and the Tribunal's Orders 2, 3 and 4, which rejected Trinidad's request for disclosure of information on this "self-help" (with Trinidad not having resubmitted that request);
81. the Award's paras. 21-28, 53 and 110-113, referring to objections raised in early 2005 by Barbados (as contested by Trinidad) to the admissibility of the Joint Reports recording the 5-year confidential negotiations, and Trinidad's Rejoinder, paras. 11-28, which Reports Barbados ultimately agreed to admit to the proceedings; the Award's paras. 32-36, concerning submission (on Barbados's initiative) by both parties of certain supplementary evidence shortly prior to the Hearings and Day 5, 33-34 [Co-Agent Volterra, 24 October 2005];
82. the Award s para. 39, quoting the President's Statement requesting the parties to observe the confidentiality of the arbitral proceedings in connection with Trinidad's press reports published in the course of the Hearings and Day 5, 4-6 [Co-Agent Volterra, 24 October 2005], 36 [President Schwebel], 71-72 [Volterra].
83. See the account of the Court's handling of the procedural difficulties caused by the 82 documents forged by Qatar, in Qatar v. Bahrain Orders, President S.M. Schwebel, ICJ Reports 1998, 243, 1999, 3;
84. Qatar v. Bahrain (Merits) Judgment, President G. Guillaume, ICJ Reports 2001, 46-48, paras. 15-25 and Separate Opinion of Judge ad hoc L.Y. Fortier, 452-453, paras. 1-11;
85. Hearings, CR 2000/12, 45 [Counsel Reisman, 9 June 2000] at www.icj-cij.org; S. Rosenne, The Law and Practice of the International Court, 1920-2005 1247-1248, 1275 (2006);
86. Judge Schwebel's 2004 Yale Alumni Reflections, supra note 5, at 40, strongly disapproving of Qatar's fraud, as well as of the mistreatment by the Court of due process (at the intervention stage) and certain facts and the law (at the merits stage) in the Nicaragua v. USA Military and Paramilitary Activities In and Against Nicaragua case;
87. as previously also criticized by Schwebel, Justice in International Law, supra note 5, at 134-139;
88. S.M. Schwebel, "The Roles of the Security Council and ICJ in the Application of International Humanitarian Law," 27 New York University Journal of International Law and Politics 731, 738-744 (1995) at www.nyu.edu/pubs/jilp/main/issues/27/w.html;
89. Iran v. USA Oil Platforms (Preliminary Objection) Dissenting Opinion of then ICJ Vice-President Schwebel, ICJ Reports 1996, 878, 888-889;
90. F.A. Mann Lecture delivered on 14 October 1998 by President Stephen M. Schwebel, "National Judges and Judges AdHoc of the International Court of Justice," 48 International and Comparative Law Quarterly (ICLQ) 889-900, at 894 n. 16;
91. 1999; review by Judge S.M. Schwebel of the book by J. Collier and V. Lowe, The Settlement of Disputes in International Law (1999), in 95 AJIL 464, 465-466 (2001);
92. T. Gill, Rosenne's The World Court: What It Is and How It Works 125: Postscript (6th Ed. 2003) at www.brill.n1/product.asp?article_ID- 651&ID-18150. On the "clean hands" doctrine,
93. see also S.M. Schwebel, "Clean Hands Doctrine," in The World Bank, International Financial Institutions, and the Development of International Law 74-78 (ASIL 1999), explaining the exposition of this doctrine in his Nicaragua v. USA (Merits) Dissenting Opinion, ICJ Reports 1986, 272, para. 14, at 392-394, paras. 268-272, as relied upon by Belgium in the Yugoslavia v. Belgium Legality of Use of Force (Provisional Measures) Order, ICJ Reports 1999, 124 and Dissenting Opinion of Vice-President Weeramantry, 184;
94. as further relied upon in Congo v. Belgium Arrest Warrant of 11 April 2000 Dissenting Opinion of Judge ad hoc Van den Wyngaert, ICJ Rep. 2002, 160, para. 35;
95. Iran v. United States Oil Platforms (Merits) Judgment, ICJ Reports 2003, 176-177, paras. 27-29, at 208, para. 100;
96. US Rejoinder, para. 2.13 and n. 169;
97. Hearings, CR 2003/8, 26, para. 4, at 29, para. 13, at 30-31, paras. 19-21, at 35, para. 31, at 38-39 [Counsel Pellet, 19 February 2003], CR 2003/11, 32, paras. 14.24/27 [Counsel Mathias, 25 February], CR 2003/16, 24-26 [Pellet, 3 March], CR 2003/18, 14 [Mathias, 5 March 2003]; Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall Advisory Opinion, ICJ Reports 2004, 163-164, paras. 63-64 at www.icj-cij.org; Kwiatkowska, ICJ President Guillaume's Triennium (2005), supra note 6, at 69 n. 54 and at 96 ns. 153-155.
98. 60th ICJ Anniversary, including Statements of UNSG Kofi A. Annan and ICJ President Rosalyn Higgins, 12 April 2006 at www.icj-cij.org/60/index.htm, as alluded to in the 2006 Barbados/Trinidad and Tobago Award, para. 223, quoted infra note 72. On previous visits of UNSG Kofi A. Annan to the ICJ during the triennium of President Stephen M. Schwebel on 2-3 March 1997 and 17 May 1999,
99. see ICJ Press Releases No.97/5, 24 February 1997 and No.99/21, 17 May 1999 at www.icj-cij.org/icjwww/ipresscom/ipreven.htm; and during the triennium of President Gilbert Guillaume on 22 November 2002,
100. see id.
101. and ICJ Press Release No.2002/35.
102. Qatar v. Bahrain Maritime Delimitation and Territorial Questions (Merits) Judgment, President G. Guillaume, ICJ Reports 2001, 40, reprinted in 40 ILM 847 (2001); www.gna.gov.bh/bahrain-qatar/news/title- e1.html;
103. supra note 17. For the Judgment's appraisals, see Ph. Weckel, CIJ: Arrêt du 16 mars 2001 (fond), 105 RGDIP 443-447 (2001);
104. E. Decaux, 47 Annuaire Françis de Droit International (AFDI) 177-240 (2001);
105. G. Plant, "The Qatar v. Bahrain (Merits) Judgment," (2002) 96 AJIL 198-210;
106. J.R. Crook, "The 2001 Judicial Activity of the ICJ," (2002) 96 AJIL 397, 397-400;
107. Ch. Dominice, Arrêt du 16 mars 2001, 12 Revue Suisse de Droit International et de Droit Européen 218-228 (2002);
108. M.G. Kohen, "Les questions territoriales dans l'Arrêt de la C.I.J. du 16 mars 2001 en l'affaire Qatar c. Bahrein," 106 Revue Générale de Droit International Public (RGDIP) 295-328 (2002);
109. P. Weil, "Les hauts-fonds découvrants dans la délimitation maritime," in Liber Amicorum Judge Oda, supra note 5, at 307-321;
110. G. Ziccardi Capaldo, "The Qatar v. Bahrain Case Report," (2002) 2 Yearbook of International Law and Jurisprudence 285-309 at www.oceanalaw.com/main_product_details.asp?ID=298;
111. B. Kwiatkowska, "The Qatar v. Bahrain Maritime Delimitation and Territorial Questions Case" (IBRU Maritime Briefing 2003) at www.dur.ac.uk/ibru/publications/briefings & www.dur.ac.uk/ibru.www/ publications/showpubs.php?id=245 & (2002) 33 Ocean Development and International Law (ODIL) 227-262;
112. A.P. Palomar, "L'Arrêt du 16 Mars 2001 (Affaire Qatar/Bahrein)," 106 RGDIP 329, 343-344 (2002);
113. ème Siecle: Le Regard d'un Juge 303-318, (Editions A. Pedone 2003);
114. Kwiatkowska, "ICJ President Guillaume's Triennium (2005)," supra note 6, at 92-133. On Barbados's Counsel having previously been Bahrain's Counsel, see man text accompanying supra note 11.
115. See supra note 14. On the previously established precedent of direct public access to all pleadings of the inaugural Annex VII Southern Bluefin Tuna (Jurisdiction and Admissibility) Award, President Stephen M. Schwebel [39 ILM 1359 (2000);
116. International Law Reports (ILR) 508];
117. ICSID at www.worldbank.org/icsid/, as also allowed in the next environmentally focused OSPAR and Annex VII Ireland v. United Kingdom Mox Plant Arbitrations (PCA),
118. see B. Kwiatkowska, "The Southern Bluefin Tuna Case Report," 95 AJIL 162-171 (2001).
119. The Southern Bluefin Tuna precedent of public access to the pleadings was also followed in the case of the 2005 Belgium/Netherlands Iron Rhine Award, President Rosalyn Higgins (ICJ President, 2006-2009), PCA at www.pca-cpa.org/ENGLISH/RPC & www.asil.org/ilib/2005/06/ilib050614.htm.
120. This title, referring to Arbitration "between" the parties, is typical of cases instituted by means of jointly agreed Arbitration Agreements, as was the case with, e.g., the 1977/1978 Anglo/French Continental Shelf Decisions or the 1998/1999 Eritrea/Yemen (Phases I-II) Awards, which therefore did not involve any Preliminary Objections to the Tribunal's jurisdiction.
121. PCA website, supra note 14, and on Barbados's proposal concerning the simultaneous exchange of pleadings,
122. see 2006 Barbados/Trinidad and Tobago Award, para. 7. On the joining of Preliminary Objections to the Merits phase,
123. see supra note 13; and on one such Objection raised by Barbados,
124. see main text accompanying infra note 53.
125. S. Rosenne, The Law and Practice of the International Court, 1920-1997 1585-1590 (Third Edition 1997) and 1920-2005 1531-1536 (Fourth Edition 2006).
126. See id., at 1585 (1997) and 1531 (2006), noting with respect to the qualités that: "Frequently overlooked, this is an essential element, since it places what follows in context."
127. 2006 Barbados/Trinidad and Tobago Award, paras. 68, 75, 196-198, 213-215 and 272-277. This definition of the Barbados/Trinidad dispute conforms with the ICJ's definition of the dispute, in the Cameroon v. Nigeria (Preliminary Objections) Judgment, ICJ Reports 1998, 314-315, para. 87; as reaffirmed by the Liechtenstein v. Germany Certain Property (Preliminary Objections) Judgment, ICJ Reports 2005, 18, para. 24 and the Democratic Republic of Congo v. Rwanda Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo (Jurisdiction) Judgment, ICJ Reports 2006, para. 90 at www.icj-cij.org.
128. 2006 Barbados/Trinidad and Tobago Award, dispositif para. 384(i).
129. 2006 Barbados/Trinidad and Tobago Award, dispositif para. 385(1)-(2), referring to the list of pertinent points set forth in para. 382, illustrative Maps V-VII, and the Technical Report of the Tribunal's Hydrographer, D.H. Gray, attached to the Award. As the Award's para. 382(3) and the Technical Report specify, the geographic coordinates and azimuths of the boundary line are related to the World Geodetic System 1984 (WGS-84) geodetic datum. According to dispositif para. 385(2): "Claims of the Parties inconsistent with this Boundary are not accepted." On the lack of indication of the geodetic datum in the 2002 Cameroon v. Nigeria; Equatorial Guinea Intervening (Merits) Judgment [supra note 4],
130. see Kwiatkowska, ICJ President Guillaume's Triennium (2005), supra note 6, at 151 and 156. In accordance with practice conforming to LOSC Articles 75 and 84, the coordinates of the Barbados/Trinidad and Tobago single boundary were deposited by the parties with the UNDOALOS's Charts and Lists of Geographical Coordinates at www.un.org/Depts/los.
131. 2006 Barbados/Trinidad and Tobago Award, dispositif para. 384(ii) and illustrative Maps H-IV On the Award's use of the term 'outer continental shelf,' which the Arbitral Tribunal preferred over the term 'extended continental shelf (ECS)' used by the parties, see para. 65 n. 4 and Hearings Day 4, 91 [Counsel Crawford, 21 October 2005].
132. 2006 Barbados/Trinidad and Tobago Award, dispositifpara. 384(iii).
133. Id. and dispositif para. 385(3).
134. See also emphasis on importance of these fisheries-related holdings - along with those concerning compulsory jurisdiction and determination of the Barbados/Trinidad and Tobago single boundary - in UNSG Oceans Report, UN Doc. A/61/63/Add.1, paras. 175-176 (2006), supra note 14.
135. For definition of the Barbados/Trinidad and Tobago dispute,
136. see supra note 25.
137. 2006 Barbados/Trinidad and Tobago Award, para. 200(i). See also the emphasis on the importance of LOSC Articles 279-280 by the 2000 Southern Bluefin Tuna Award, supra note 20, para. 53;
138. and S. Rosenne, Provisional Measures in International Law 123-124 (Oxford 2005), stressing that LOSC Article 279 commences Part XV by proceeding from the basic principle that states-parties shall settle their disputes concerning the interpretation or application of the LOSC by peaceful means in accordance with Article 2(3) of the UN Charter, and by using means indicated in the UN Charter's Article 33(1).
139. See the 2001 Ireland v. United Kingdom Mox Plant (Provisional Measures) Separate Opinion of one of the most influential architects of the LOSC, then ITLOS President Dolliver Nelson, paras. 5-6 [41 ILM 405 (2002); www.itlos.org], recalling that the 2000 Southern Bluefin Tuna Award, supra note 20, in para. 59 found that the requirements of LOSC Article 281(1) had not been met and forcefully stressing that: "The point being made here is that it is in the requirements contained in Articles 281 and 282 that can be found the crucial test whereby there can be any resort to the compulsory procedures embodied in Part XV, Section 2. In other words the bar created by these Articles can only be circumvented when the requirements are met;" as also emphasized in the Mox Plant (Provisional Measures) Separate Opinion of another principal LOSC architect, Judge David Anderson, para. 1.
140. 2006 Barbados/Trinidad and Tobago Award, para. 200 and the Tribunal's preceding holdings in paras. 193-199 on Articles 74 and 83.
141. See also the 2003 Malaysia v. Singapore Land Reclamation In and Around the Straits of Johor (Provisional Measures) Order, President L.D.M. Nelson, paras. 54-57, at www.itlos.org, in which the ITLOS found that both parties agreed, pursuant to LOSC Article 281, that their negotiations would be without prejudice to Malaysia's right to institute the Annex VII Arbitration or to request the ITLOS to prescribe provisional measures. For the 2005 Annex VII Malaysia v. Singapore Award, including the Settlement Agreement,
142. see PCA at www.pca-cpa.org/ENGLISH/RPC/ and Singapore MFA at http://internet-stg1.mfa.gov.sg/internet/press/malaysia.htm. On the involvement of Sir Arthur Watts, Vaughan Lowe, Sir Elihu Lauterpacht and Michael Reisman in the Malaysia v. Singapore case,
143. see supra notes 10-11. On the unquestioned absence in the UNCLOS III travaux préparatoires of any support whatsoever for the sometimes mistakenly advanced argument in the literature that exclusion by the agreements falling under LOSC Article 281 of "any further procedure" (under Part XV, Section 2) should - as this Article does not specify - be "express",
144. see M.H. Nordquist, Editor-in-Chief, Shabtai Rosenne and Louis B. Sohn, eds., United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea 1982 - A Commentary, Vol. V, 22-24 [Article 281] (1989);
145. and works by Kwiatkowska, Rosenne and McDorman quoted infra, notes 35-36.
146. Accordingly, the sometimes again mistakenly advanced argument in the literature that the 2000 Southern Bluefin Tuna Award contradicted the ITLOS's interpretation is misplaced in that the ITLOS did not in its 1999 Order rely upon Article 281, which was entirely disregarded in its legal reasoning [the Award could, thus, not contradict an interpretation which did not exist].
147. See also the Southern Bluefin Tuna Award, supra note 20, in paras. 65-69, stressing the significant role played by the 1999 ITLOS Southern Bluefin Tuna (Provisional Measures) Order [38 ILM 1624 (1999)] in efforts aimed at the resolution of the dispute. Note that given a low standard of prima facie jurisdiction, its upholding does not require the ICJ or ITLOS "to satisfy itself beyond doubt that it has jurisdiction on the merits of the case."
148. See, e.g., eight Legality of Use of Force (Provisional Measures) Orders, ICJ Reports 1999, 140, 273, 374, 433, 492, 557, 671, 773, which upheld prima facie jurisdiction and which were followed by the eight 2004 Legality of Use of Force (Jurisdiction) Judgments, available at www.icj-cij.org, which dismissed jurisdiction on the merits of these cases;
149. S. Rosenne, Settlement of Disputes, a Linchpin of the Convention: Reflections on Fishery Management Disputes, in UN Proceedings of the 20th Anniversary Commemoration of the Opening for Signature of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea 110, 127 (57th UNGA: New York 2002) at www.un.org/Depts/los,
150. rightly stressing that: "Any talk of the Southern Bluefin Tuna Arbitral Tribunal 'overriding' the decision of ITLOS is utterly baseless, because prima facie jurisdiction to prescribe provisional measures pending the determination of the case and unreserved jurisdiction to deal with the merits of the case are two entirely different legal concepts." Along with the apparent non-acquaintance of some law of the sea authors with these obvious aspects of the settlement of oceans disputes within the framework of the UN Charter, their misconceptions concerning the Southern Bluefin Tuna case partly also result from the innovatory and anomalous authorization given by LOSC Article 290(5) to decide on prima facie jurisdiction and on the merits by the two distinct (ITLOS and Annex VII Tribunal) courts, as criticized by ICJ President Higgins in her essay quoted infra note 36.
151. For analyses of doctrinal debates - in a follow-up to the 1999 ITLOS Southern Bluefin Tuna (Provisional Measures) Order (Cases Nos 3/4), 38 ILM 1624 (1999) and 94 AJIL 150-155 (2000), and the 2000 Southern Bluefin Tuna Award, supra note 20 - on special treaties falling within the ambit of LOSC Article 281,
152. see contributions in Liber Amicorum Judge Oda, supra note 5 by President Stephen M. Schwebel, The Southern Bluefin Tuna Case, at 743-748,
153. and by Chusei Yamada, "Priority Application of Successive Treaties Relating to the Same Subject Matter," id., at 763-771;
154. B. Kwiatkowska, "Case Report," supra note 20 and "The Australia and New Zealand v. Japan Southern Bluefin Tuna (Jurisdiction and Admissibility) Award of the First Law of the Sea Convention Annex VII Arbitral Tribunal," 16 International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law (IJMCL) 239-293 (2001) at www.brill.nl/product.asp? ID=18253
155. and W.R. Mansfield, "Letter to the Editor-in-Chief: Comments on Professor B. Kwiatkowska's Article," id., at 361-366, updated as of 15 June 2006 at www.law.uu.nl/nilos - Publications, Online Papers; Rosenne, Settlement of Disputes (2002), supra note 35, at 110-145;
156. Judge Rosalyn Higgins (ICJ President, 2006-2009), "The International Court of Justice, the European Court of Justice and the Integrity of International Law," 52 International and Comparative Law Quarterly (ICLQ), 1, 18-19 (2003), stressing that "the arbitrators concerned, the President of whom was a former Judge of the International Court, made copious and knowledgeable reference to the jurisprudence of the International Court in carrying out their task," and that "all that this case shows is how anomalous it is for the Law of the Sea Convention to have given the Hamburg Tribunal under Article 290(5) injunctive powers in respect of cases always intended by the parties to go elsewhere for their merits to be determined;" B. Kwiatkowska, "The Southern Bluefin Tuna Arbitral Tribunal Did Get It Right: A Reply to David A. Colson and Peggy Hoyle,"
157. 2003 34 ODIL 369-395;
158. T.L. McDorman, ed., International Ocean Law 413-423 (2005) at www.cap-press.com/books/1247;
159. Kwiatkowska, "The World Court and Peaceful Settlement of Oceans Disputes" and T. Treves, "A System for Law of the Sea Dispute Settlement," in The Law of the Sea (2006), supra note 1, at 417-432 and 433-457;
160. Rosenne, The Law and Practice (2006), supra note 23, at 33-34, 38, 1398.
161. On the Mox Plant dispute, which in accordance with the doctrine of treaty parallelism expounded by the 2000 Southern Bluefin Tuna Award, raised the issue of the applicability, pursuant to LOSC Article 282, of the ECJ's exclusive jurisdiction under Articles 292 EC and 193 EURATOM over disputes between the EU Member States concerning interpretation or application of the LOSC as "a mixed agreement" (to which - under LOSC Articles 305-307 and Annex IX - both the EU and its Member States are parties),
162. see B. Kwiatkowska, "The Ireland v. UK Mox Plant Case: Applying the Doctrine of Treaty Parallelism," (2003) 18 IJMCL 1-57 at www.brill.nl/product.asp?ID=18253;
163. Kwiatkowska, "The Southern Bluefin Tuna Arbitral Tribunal Did Get It Right" and Kwiatkowska, The World Court, supra note 36;
164. the 2003 OSPAR Ireland v. UK Mox Plant Award, President Michael Reisman, PCA at www.pca-cpa.org/ENGLISH/RPC/; 42 ILM 1118 (2003);
165. ASIL/ILIB of 25 July 2003 at www.asil.org/ilib/ilib0613.htm
166. and T.L. McDorman, "The OSPAR Mox Plant Case Report," 98 AJIL 330-339 (2004);
167. ECJ European Commission v. Ireland Mox Plant Case C-459/03, OJEC C 7/24 (2004) at http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/pri/en/oj/dat/2004/c 007/c_00720040110en00240024.pdf
168. and Opinion of Advocate General Poiares Maduro of 12 January 2006 [UNSG Oceans Report, UN Doc. A/61/63, para. 275 (2006) at www.un.org/Depts/los]
169. and the ECJ European Commission v. Ireland Mox Plant Judgment of 30 May 2006 at http://curia.europa.eu/jurisp/cgibin/form.pl?lang=EN&Submit- rechercher&numaff=C-459/03
170. & Cases since 1989 at http://curia.eu.int/en/content/juris/index.htm and PR No.45/06 at http://curia.eu.nt/en/actu/communiques/cp060045en.pdf & www.asil.org/ilib/2006/07/ilib060706.htm,
171. which adjudged that by initiating the LOSC Annex VII Ireland v. UK Mox Plant Arbitration, Ireland violated Articles 10 and 292 EC and Articles 192-193 EURATOM; President Thomas A. Mensah, Arbitrators Sir Arthur Watts KCMG QC, L. Yves Fortier CC QC, James Crawford SC, Gerhard Hafner, PCA at www.pca-cpa.org/ENGLISH/RPC & www.asil.org/ilib/ilib0613.htm. On the Arbitral Tribunal's 2007 Order No. 5, see infra note 41.
172. 2006 ECJ EC v. Ireland Mox Plant Judgment, supra note 37, para. 110, providing that: "It appears that the matters covered by the provisions of the Convention [LOSC] relied upon by Ireland before the Annex VII Arbitral Tribunal are very largely regulated by Community measures;" para. 132, stating that "an international agreement such as the Convention [LOSC] cannot affect the exclusive jurisdiction of the Court in regard to the resolution of disputes between Member States concerning the interpretation and application of Community law," and that "Article 282 of the Convention [LOSC] precisely makes it possible to avoid such a breach occurring, in such a way as to preserve the autonomy of the Community legal system" (emphasis added) [also paras. 125-127];
173. para. 154, stressing that "the institution and pursuit of proceedings before the Arbitral Tribunal [...] involve a manifest risk that the jurisdictional order laid down in the Treaties and, consequently, the autonomy of the Community legal system may be adversely affected' (emphasis added);
174. and paras. 176-177. The concern about preservation of the autonomy of the EC legal system was previously also likely to be an unarticulated reason for the decisions taken in the Spain v. Canada Fisheries (Jurisdiction) Judgment, ICJ Reports 1998, 432 and Case Report, 93 AJIL 502-507 (1999);
175. the 2003 OSPAR Ireland v. UK Mox Plant Award, supra note 37;
176. and the 2001 ITLOS EC/Chile Conservation and Sustainable Exploitation of Swordfish Stocks in the South-Eastern Pacific Ocean Order, 40 ILM 475 (2001) and the Order of 29 December 2005 further suspending proceedings until 1 January 2008, see at www.itlos.org.
177. 2005 Belgium/Netherlands Iron Rhine Award, President Rosalyn Higgins, supra note 20, paras. 13-15, 97-105, 119-120, 137, 206.
178. See also suggestions (made by him originally in 1987 at the Dutch International Law Association (ILA) Branch) by Judge Stephen M. Schwebel, "Preliminary Rulings by the ICJ at the Instance of National Courts," (1988) 28 Virginia Journal of International Law (VJIL) 495 (1988)
179. and S. Rosenne, "A Reply," (1989) 29 VJIL 401. On "preliminary rulings" (also referred to as the "preliminary reference" procedure) generally, see P. Craig & G. de Burea, eds., EU Law - Text, Cases and Materials 432-449 (2003);
180. D. Chalmers, C. Hadjiemmanuil, G. Monti & A. Tomkins, European Union Law 272-310 (Cambridge 2006).
181. Statement of ICJ President Schwebel to the 54th UNGA (1999), supra note 1; Statements of President Gilbert Guillaume to the 55th UNGA, ICJ Press Release No.2000/36, 26 October 2000, and to the 56th UNGA, at 4, UN Doc. A/56/PV.32, 30 October 2001, reprinted in ICJ Yearbook 2000-2001 319-326 (No.56) and ICJ Yearbook 2001-2002 308-313 (No.57);
182. Statement of ICJ President Shi Jiuyong (59th UNGA) to the 6th Committee, PR GA/L/3266 of 5 November 2004, pp. 5-6 at www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2004/ gal3266.doc.htm; all of them at www.icj-cij.org/icjwww/ipresscom/iprstats.htm; as supported by, e.g., UN Legal Counsel Hans Corell, "The Feasibility of Implementing The Hague/St. Petersburg Centennial Recommendations Under the UN System," in Peaceful Resolution of Major International Disputes 31-48 (UN 1999);
183. Statement of President Jacques Chirac of France, ICJ Press Release No.2000/7, 29 February 2000 at www.icj-cij.org/icjwww/ipresscom/ipreven.htm; Shabtai Rosenne, The Perplexities of Modern International Law, 291 Collected Courses of The Hague Academy of International Law 132-133 (2001);
184. Bernard H. Oxman, Comments on the Horizontal" Growth of International Courts, in The Legalization of International Relations, Proceedings of the 96th ASIL Annual Meeting, Washington DC, 13-16 March 2002 373, 375-376 (2002);
185. Guillaume, La Cour Internationale (2003), supra note 19, at 43-45;
186. Kwiatkowska, ICJ President Guillaume's Triennium (2005), supra note 6, at 88-90;
187. Rosenne, The Law and Practice (2006), supra note 23, at 39-40.
188. Such an unlikely but not impossible solution would amount to an ingenious application of the consent-based clause "unless the parties to the dispute otherwise agree" of LOSC Article 282 [supra note 38] without prejudice to the EU law, and it would also amount to an unprecedented seeking by one international court (Annex VII Tribunal) of legal findings and conclusions by another court (ECJ) enjoying jurisdictional primacy with respect to a particular (Mox Plant) dispute. The application of such a "preliminary ruling" solution remains possible in the light of Annex VII Ireland v. UK Mox Plant (Suspension of Periodic Reports by the Parties) Order No. 5 of 22 January 2007 and Press Release of 21 February 2007 at www.pca-cpa.org/ENGLISH/RPC
189. On these and other examples of important impacts displayed in the cases which did not proceed to the merits phase, see Kwiatkowska, The World Court (2006), supra note 1. Note also that the principles governing the preventive triad of environmental impact assessment (EIA) and prior notification and consultations, which lay at the heart of the Mox Plant dispute in the context of EU law (conforming with the LOSC and general international law), form the main contentions in the pending Argentina v. Uruguay Pulp Mills on the River Uruguay Case,
190. see at www.icj-cij.org. See also news story 'Canadian Company Dundee Precious Metals May Sue Bulgaria in Dispute over EIA under Bilateral Investment Treaty (BIT)' of 12 July 2006 at www.dundeeprecious.com/dundee/investors_news/ Krumupdate071206final 2006712837.pdf & 10 August 2006 at www.iisd.org/pdf/2006/itn_aug10_2006.pdf; and generally, see S.M. Schwebel, "The Future of BITs: An Arbitrator's Perspective," 3rd Annual Seminar on International Commercial Arbitration, Washington D.C., 9-12 October 2006 at www.wcl.american.edu/arbitration/2006/seminar.cfm. On treatment of this preventive triad in the Hungary/Slovakia Gabcikovo-Nagymaros Project Judgment, ICJ Reports 1997, 7,
191. see Kwiatkowska, ICJ President Schwebel's Triennium (2002), supra note 1, at 42-48, revised as of 3 November 2006 at www.law.uu.nl/nilos - Publications, Online Papers.
192. McDorman, "The OSPAR Mox Plant Case Report," supra note 37, at 337-339, rightly countering Philippe Sands, who infused his laments as Ireland's Counsel into his textbook on Principles of International Environmental Law 857-858 (2003).
193. 2006 Barbados/Trinidad and Tobago Award, paras. 201-208 and ITLOS jurisprudence quoted in the Award's para. 69, including the ITLOS 1999 Southern Bluefin Tuna (Provisional Measures) Order, para. 60, the 2001 Mox Plant (Provisional Measures) Order, para. 60, and the 2003 Land Reclamation in and around the Straits of Johor (Provisional Measures) Order, paras. 47-52,
194. see at www.itlos.org, all rendered under LOSC Article 290(5) pending the establishment of the respective Annex VII Tribunals; and the 2000 Southern Bluefin Tuna Award, supra note 20, para. 55 as quoted by Barbados's Reply, para. 91 n. 184, para. 101 n. 198; and rejection of Trinidad's arguments in this Reply's paras. 94-106;
195. Hearings Day 1, 66-79, esp. 76 [Counsel Reisman, 17 October 2005], referring to "Baron Von Munchausen tactics", and Day 5, 8 [Reisman, 24 October 2005], referring to "a popular Canadian film entitled 'Ground Hog Day' in which a character was obliged to live through the same day again and again and again", and asking the Barbados/Trinidad and Tobago Tribunal: "Does LOSC really call for a Ground Hog Day scenario?". See also the Award's paras. 70 and 198, referring to characterization by Barbados of Trinidad's approach (rejected by the Tribunal) as "idiosyncratic," "unrealistic and formalistic," and even, in the terms of the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (Articles 31-32), "manifestly absurd or unreasonable," and as frustrating the object and purpose of LOSC Part XV as a whole.
196. See also 2007 Guyana/Suriname Award, supra note 13. For appraisals of the rules governing treaty interpretation,
197. see Sir Arthur Watts (1999), Vol. II, supra note 10, at 681-693 [Articles 27-28, subsequently 31-32];
198. Brownlie (2003), supra note 10, at 602-607;
199. A. Aust, Handbook of International Law 88-98 (2005) at www.cambridge.org/uk/catalogue/catalogue.asp?isbn=0521823498, supporting, at 94, views of Judge
200. Stephen M. Schwebel, "May Preparatory Work Be Used to Correct Rather Than Confirm the 'Clear' Meaning of a Treaty Provision?" in J. Makarczyk, ed., Theory of International Law at the Threshold of the 21st Century 541-547 (1996);
201. Judge Schwebel's essay is reprinted in 2 Transnational Dispute Management (TDM) (2005 No.5) at www.transnational-dispute-management.com/ samples/toc.asp?key=10.
202. Barbados/Trinidad and Tobago Hearings Day 1, 76 [Counsel Reisman, 17 October 2005], adding at 77-78 that: "But above all, however erudite the Virginia Commentary may be, and even if it did support Trinidad and Tobago's view, it does not and cannot transform the plain meaning of the Convention's text from a clear unilateral right to invoke compulsory dispute resolution in the event that a settlement cannot be reached into 'no more than a bilateral negotiation subject to the unilateral veto of one party'. And that, Mr. President, members of the Tribunal, would be the upshot of adopting Trinidad and Tobago's view; and it would render Part XVs dispute resolution provisions virtually worthless. After all, it is always open to two states to agree ex post to submit a dispute to arbitration. A convention would not go out of its way simply to reaffirm this. It gives states parties an ex ante guarantee that, should negotiations and consultations fail, third-party dispute resolution will be available at the initiative of either one of them, and that it is of course a principal reason why states enter the Convention;" and other references quoted supra note 44.
203. 2006 Barbados/Trinidad and Tobago Award, paras. 71, 75-77, 201-202, 205-206 (quoting in paras. 71, 77, Virginia Commentary, Vol. V, supra note 34, at 28-31 [Article 283]) and Hearings Day 7, 17-18, 50 [Questions of Judge Sir Arthur Watts, 27 October 2005], 45-64 [Counsel Wordsworth]; and the Award's para. 207, rightly rejecting an argument based on reference to "the States concerned" in the plural in Articles 74 and 83(2), as relied upon in Trinidad's Rejoinder, para. 40(2) and as countered by Counsel Reisman, supra note 44. The Barbados/Trinidad and Tobago Award's conclusion that the requirements of Article 283 are subsumed within Articles 74 and 83 applies as much to negotiations of delimitation agreements under Articles 74 and 83(1) as to every effort made by states under Articles 74 and 83(3) to enter into provisional arrangements pending conclusion of such agreements. See also 2007 Guyana/Suriname Award, supra note 13.
204. The Cameroon v. Nigeria Land and Maritime Boundary (Preliminary Objections) Judgment, President Stephen M. Schwebel, ICJ Reports 1998, 322-325, paras. 103-111 and at 326, dispositif para. 118(1)(g), dismissed Nigeria's Seventh Preliminary Objection and its argument that a precondition of prior negotiations was not fulfilled under Articles 74 and 83, on the ground that [para. 109] the Court had not been seised on the basis of the LOSC Part XV but on that of the Optional Clause under Article 36(2) of the ICJ Statute, which did not contain any condition relating to prior negotiations being conducted within a reasonable time period, and that [paras. 107 and 110] the parties "entered into negotiations with a view to determining the whole - up to Point G and beyond - of the maritime boundary" and have not been able to agree on the continuation of the negotiations beyond Point G; as reaffirmed by the Cameroon v. Nigeria; Equatorial Guinea Intervening (Merits) Judgment, President Gilbert Guillaume, ICJ Reports 2002, 416-417, paras. 226, and at 422-424, paras. 239-245, adding [at 424, para. 244], that like all similar obligations to negotiate in international law, the negotiations pursuant to Articles 74 and 83 "have to be conducted in good faith" but Articles 74 and 83 "do not require that delimitation negotiations should be successful." For reaffirmation of this latter principle of "meaningful negotiations" as not allowing that either of the parties "insists upon its own position without contemplating any modification of it,"
205. see also the Gabcikovo/Nagymaros Project Judgment, ICJ Reports 1997, 78, para. 141, reaffirming the North Sea Judgment, ICJ Reports 1969, 47, para. 85. For analyses of Articles 74 and 83-related holdings of the 1998 and 2002 Cameroon v. Nigeria Judgments, see Kwiatkowska, The Contribution (2004), supra note 4, at 114-115, 119-120;
206. and Kwiatkowska, ICJ President Guillaume's Triennium (2005), supra note 6, at 144-145, 148-150.
207. See reaffirmation of the principle of "meaningful negotations" by the 1997 Gabcikovo/Nagymaros Project Judgment, supra note 47 and the 2006 Barbados/Trinidad and Tobago Award, para. 292, quoting the 1956 France v. Spain Lake Lanoux Award, President Petren, UNRIAA XII, 285; 24 ILR 101; (1959) 53 AJIL 156, holding that: "one speaks, although often inaccurately, of the 'obligation of negotiating an agreement'. In reality engagements thus undertaken by States take very diverse forms and have a scope which varies according to the manner in which they are defined and according to the procedures intended for their execution; but the reality of the obligations thus undertaken is incontestable and sanctions can be applied in the event, for example, of an unjustified breaking off of the discussions, abnormal delays, disregard of the agreed procedures, systematic refusal to take into consideration adverse proposals or interests, and, more generally, in cases of the violation of the rule of good faith; as further referred to infra note 84.
208. 2006 Barbados/Trinidad & Tobago Award, paras. 88-102, 105, 208;
209. Barbados's Reply, paras. 107-117, noting [paras. 110-112] that Trinidad and Tobago's objections resembled India's objections in Portugal v. India Right of Passage (Preliminary Objections) Judgment, ICJ Reports 1957, 125 and Hearings Day 7, 64-68 [Counsel Wordsworth, 27 October 2005].
210. See also reaffirmation of the fundamental principle of good faith by the Gabcikovo-Nagymaros Project Judgment, ICJ Reports 1997, 66, 78-79;
211. Cameroon v. Nigeria (Preliminary Objections) Judgment, ICJ Reports 1998, 296, para. 38;
212. and the 2000 Southern Bluefin Tuna Award, para. 64, supra note 20. The 2000 Award did not exclude instances in which the conduct of a state-party under the LOSC and its implementing fisheries treaty would be so egregious, and risk consequences of such gravity, that an Annex VII or any other court might find that the Convention's obligations under Article 300 provide a basis for jurisdiction. Note that in a situation such as that of the 1946 International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling (ICRW), which does not possess any dispute settlement clause [161 UNTS 72; 338 UNTS 72], the above possibility envisaged in the 2000 Award's para. 64 with respect to breach of LOSC Article 300, could perhaps be relied upon by Australia for the purposes of instituting the proceedings against Japan due to its intention of resuming commercial whaling. For reference to the ICRW (which provided a model for Japan's southern bluefin tuna programme),
213. see the 2000 Southern Bluefin Tuna Award's para. 38(i). For the IRCW, see www.iwcoffice.org/index.htm and current news on whaling at http://news.scotsman.com/topics.cfm?tid=226.
214. 2006 Barbados/Trinidad & Tobago (Jurisdiction and Merits) Award, paras. 2, 67-68, 73, 78, 192, 204. On optional exceptions set forth in LOSC Article 298(1), requiring (by contrast to automatic exceptions under LOSC Article 297(2)-(3), further referred to infra note 83) that a state file a declaration to this effect,
215. see also Denmark (Greenland) v. Norway (Jan Mayen) Separate Opinion of ICJ Vice-President Oda, ICJ Reports 1993, 113;
216. 2000 Southern Bluefin Tuna Award, supra note 20, para. 61;
217. 2003 Malaysia v. Singapore (Provisional Measures) Order, supra note 34, para. 28 and Hearings, ITLOS/PV.03/02/Corr.1, 7 [Counsel Crawford, 25 September 2003] at www.itlos.org. For Australia's reservation to its Optional Clause excluding from the ICJ's jurisdiction disputes over maritime boundary delimitation or the exploitation of an area in dispute or adjacent to that area, as well as its Declaration under LOSC Article 298(1)(a), both of 25 March 2002,
218. see www.foreignminister.gov.au/releases/2002/fa039j_02.html; UN Law of the Sea Bulletin 16 (2002 No.48).
219. See also V. Lowe, C. Carleton & C. Ward, Joint Legal Opinion (2002) at www.petrotimor.com and the meanwhile concluded Australia/Timor-Leste Dili International Unitisation Agreement for Greater Sunrise of 6 March 2003 and Treaty on Certain Maritime Arrangements in the Timor Sea of 12 January 2006, at www.dfat.gov.au/geo/east_timor/fs_maritime_arrangements.html & www.austlii.edu.au/au/other/dfat/special/etimor/index.html.
220. 2006 Barbados/Trinidad and Tobago Award, paras. 204 and 208, both referring to the ICJ Optional Clause; and appraisals by J.G. Merrills, "The Optional Clause at Eighty" and by F. Orrego Vicuña, "The Legal Nature of the Optional Clause," in Liber Amicorum Judge Oda, supra note 5, at 435-450 and 463-480;
221. Rosenne, "Evaluation of Compulsory (Optional Clause) Jurisdiction," in The Law and Practice, supra note 23, at 831-836 (1997) and 797-802 (2006);
222. F. Orrego Vicuña, International Dispute Settlement in an Evolving Global Society (Hersch Lauterpacht Memorial Lectures 2004), reviewed by Judge Stephen M. Schwebel, 100 AJIL 971-973 (2006) at www.cambridge.org/uk/catalogue/catalogue.asp?isbn= 9780521842396.
223. 1992 Canada/France (St. Pierre et Miquelon) Award, paras. 75-82 [UNRIAA XXI, 267;
224. ILM 1197 (1992)], noting in para. 81 that the Court s decision not to prolong the single boundary beyond 200 nautical miles and thereby to avoid encroaching upon the ISBA's and CLCS's functions, was strengthened by the lack of agreement between Canada and France (also referred to in the Award's paras. 75-77 and the Dissent of Arbitrator Prosper Weil, para. 42) on whether the geomorphological data made such an extension possible; D.W. Bowett, "The Canada/France (St. Pierre et Miquelon) Arbitration," in M. Perez Gonzalez, ed., Hacia un Nuevo Orden Internacional y Europeo - Estudios en Homenaje al Professor Don Manuel Diez de Velasco 123-136 (Madrid 1993);
225. Saint Pierre et Miquelon at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint- Pierre_and_Miquelon; Subdivisions of France at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Administrative_divisions_of_France. The complete enclosure within the EEZ of Canada (Newfoundland and Labrador) of the unusual "mashroom" (sic)-shaped zone awarded to Saint Pierre et Miquelon was confirmed by the 2002 Newfoundland and Labrador/Nova Scotia (Phase II) Award, paras. 2.31, 4.27 at www.gov.ns.ca/ & www.nr.gov.nl.ca; Press Release of 2 April 2002 at www.releases.gov.nl.ca/releases/2002/mines&en/0402n01.htm; as preceded by the 2001 Newfoundland and Labrador/Nova Scotia (Phase I) Award at www.gov.ns.ca/petro/documents/TribunalAwardPhaseI.pdf. The 2002 Award, paras. 2.22, 2.29/34, 4.10/14 and Figure 3, paras. 4.26/29, 5.18, dispositif paras. 6.4/5 and Figure 8: Tribunal's Delimitation, extended the Newfoundland and Labrador/Nova Scotia boundary beyond 200 nautical miles up to "the outer edge of the continental margin of Canada as it may be determined in accordance with international law." On abandoning by France in early 2006 of extending the shelf beyond 200 nautical miles off Saint Pierre et Miquelon, see infra note 115.
226. 2006 Barbados/Trinidad & Tobago Award, paras. 63-65 and Map II, paras. 80-87, quoting [para. 82] the 1992 Canada/France (St. Pierre et Miquelon) Award, paras. 75-82, and [para. 86] the 2002 Newfoundland and Labrador/Nova Scotia (Phase II) Award, the 2006 Award's Map III, paras. 174-187, 189-190, 196, 213-215, 217, 367-368, dispositif para. 384(ii);
227. Trinidad's Counter-Memorial, paras. 265-269, 287-288; Barbados's Reply, paras. 125-145;
228. Trinidad's Rejoinder, paras. 157, 219; Hearings Day 1, 85-87 [Counsel Reisman, 17 October 2005], 94-95, 105 [Co-Agent Volterra];
229. Day 4, 77-87 [Counsel Greenwood, 21 October], 88-109 [Counsel Crawford], discussing at 99-100 and 107-108, the 2002 Newfoundland and Labrador/Nova Scotia Award's boundary beyond 200 nautical miles; Day 6, 39-49 [Reisman, 25 October];
230. Day 8, 32-59 [Crawford, 28 October 2005], 42-43 [Questions by President Schwebel and Arbitrator Lowe]; supra note 28 and infra notes 97, 102-115.
231. See also the 2006 Montreal Report of the ILA Committee on Legal Issues of the Outer Continental Shelf, Chairman Judge Dolliver Nelson, Rapporteur Alex Oude Elferink at www.ila-hq.org/INDEX.htm. On the importance attached by the United States to the CLCS,
232. see U.S. Letters concerning Submissions of Russia, Brazil and Australia to CLCS on the UNDOALOS website, supra note 7, which contains the CLCS Rules of Procedure, Doc. CLCS/40 of 2 July 2004, and Legal Opinion of UN Legal Counsel Nicolas Michel, CLCS/46 of 7 September 2005;
233. Statements of Ambassador Bolton, UN Doc. A/60/PV.54, 3-4 (28 November 2005) and Mrs. Constance Arvis, 16th SPLOS, 19-23 June 2006 (20 June) at www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2006/sea1861.doc.htm.
234. Submissions by Russia (2001), Brazil (2004), Australia (2004), Ireland (2005), New Zealand (2006), France/Ireland/Spain/UK (2006) and Norway (2006), including related Letters by third states concerning these Submissions, and CLCS on the UNDOALOS website, supra note 7. On the pending maritime delimitations relevant to Australia's Submission,
235. see A. Serdy, Australia's Submission to the CLCS, 36 ODIL 201-217 (2005), and to Ireland's Submission,
236. see C.R. Symmons, The Irish Partial Submission to the CLCS, 37 ODIL 299-317 (2006). Note that the absence of express reference to the pending boundaries, e.g., in Brazil's Submission with regard to the required extension beyond 200 nautical miles of the boundaries established by the 1972 Brazil/Uruguay Demarcation of the Sea Outlet of the Arroyo Chui and Maritime Delimitation [1120 UNTS 133] and the 1981 Brazil/France (French Guyana) Maritime Delimitation [25 ILM 367 (1986)] Agreements, does not change the rule of all Submissions remaining without prejudice to the future maritime delimitations and territorial resolutions. On Brazil's Submission,
237. see E. Egede, Submission of Brazil and LOSC Article 76, 21 IJMCL 33-55 (2006). On Russia's Submission,
238. see infra notes 59 and 113.
239. France's Extraplac Submission to the CLCS at www.extraplac.fr/FR/ extensions/geographie.php; J.R.V. Prescott, Publication of a Chart Showing the Limits of South Africa's Maritime Claims, 14 IJMCL 557-565 (1999);
240. R.T. Wonnacott, The Determination and Accuracy of the Maritime Boundaries and Zones of South Africa at www.gmat.unsw.edu.au/ablos/ABLOS01Folder/ WONNACOTT.PDF;
241. E. Egede, The Outer Limits of the Continental Shelf and African States, 35 ODIL 157, 162, 170 (2004);
242. news story 'South Africa Set to Increase Its Marine (Continental Shelf) Territory' of 21 March 2006 at www.sabcnews.com/south_africa/general/0,2172, 124144,00.html & www.pretorianews.co.za/index.php?fSectionId= 1651&fArticleId-3167497, noting that France/South Africa have completed a joint geophysical survey on the submarine Del Cano Rise between these two island groups and that for the purpose of preparing its Submission to the CLCS, South Africa also cooperates with Mozambique and Namibia. On preparation of Submissions to the CLCS by Barbados and Suriname,
243. see infra note 65.
244. On the procedural issues involved in the pending Nicaragua v. Colombia Territorial and Maritime Dispute (Preliminary Objections) proceedings, in which President Stephen M. Schwebel and Arbitrator Sir Arthur Watts serve (along with Prosper Weil and former ICJ Registrar Eduardo Valencia Ospina) as Colombia's Counsel and Arbitrator Brownlie (along with Alain Pellet and Alex Oude Elferink) - as Nicaragua's Counsel, see ICJ Press Release No.2006/37 of 15 November 2006, scheduling Oral Hearings on 4 June 2007; P.H.F. Bekker, Nicaragua Sues Colombia Before the ICJ, ASIL Insights (2001) at www.asil.org/insights/insigh79.htm;
245. E. Valencia Ospina, "The Role of the International Court of Justice in the Pact of Bogota," in Liber Amicorum Judge Jose Maria Ruda 291-329 (2000);
246. J.R. Crook, The 2001 Judicial Activity of the ICJ, 96 AJIL 397, 408-409 (2002);
247. Merrills, supra note 51, at 449;
248. Rosenne, The Law and Practice (2006), supra note 23, at 787.
249. On the Nicaragua v. Colombia territorial questions and maritime delimitation,
250. see M. Pratt, The Honduras/Nicaragua Boundary, 9 IBRU Boundary & Security Bulletin 108-116 (2001 No.2) at www.dur.ac.uk/ibru/publications/ bulletin;
251. Oceans and the Law of the Sea - Reports of the Secretary-General, UN Docs A/55/61, para. 249 (2000), A/57/57, paras. 44, 564-567 (2002) and A/59/62, para. 37 (2004) at www.un.org/Depts/los/;
252. Nicaragua's Law No.420 on Maritime Areas of 5 March 2002, proclaiming its 200-nautical-mile EEZ [instead of its claimed until then 200-nautical-mile Territorial Sea] and 350-nautical-mile(sic/) continental shelf, La Gaceta [Diario Official], Managua (22 March 2002 No.57) and Colombia's Department of San Andres & Providencia at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ San_Andres_and_Providencia;
253. J. Donaldson and M. Pratt, International Boundary Developments, 9 Geopolitics 501, 527-529, including Map (2004);
254. V. Prescott & C. Schofield, The Maritime Political Boundaries 269-270, 350-351 and Figure 14.1 at 606 (2005) at www.brill.nl/product_id21967. htm.
255. Canada/United States Delimitation of the Maritime Boundary in the Gulf of Maine Area Judgment, ICJ Reports 1984, 253-255, para. 5, at 339, para. 228, Map at 346, and Technical Report at 351, para. 15;
256. as analyzed by D.R. Robinson, D.A. Colson & B.C. Rashkow, "The Gulf of Maine Case," (1985) 79 AJIL 578, 585;
257. D.A. Colson, "The Delimitation of the Outer Continental Shelf Between Neighbouring States," (2003) 97 AJIL 91, 104-105;
258. and as relied upon by Trinidad and Tobago, in Barbados/Trinidad & Tobago Hearings, Day 4, 99 [Counsel Crawford, 21 October 2005], Day 8, 40 [Crawford, 28 October 2005], making an allusion to Judge Schwebel's membership in the Gulf of Maine Chamber [infra notes 70-71, 78-79] and remarking: "It would come as a slight surprise if there needs to be another arbitration in the Gulf of Maine, but no doubt, Mr. President, you will enjoy sitting on it;" infra notes 112-114.
259. On no progress made until today in addressing the Gulf of Maine boundary landward of its Point A due to the continuing Canada/United States sovereignty dispute over Machias Seal Island and North Rock, see Gulf of Maine Judgment, ICJ Reports 1984, 265-266, para. 20, at 332-333, paras. 210-213;
260. D.A. Colson and R.W. Smith, "North American Maritime Boundaries," in International Maritime Boundaries (IMB) Vol.V, 3401, 3402 (2005) at www.brill.nl/product_id21989.htm; McDorman (2005), supra note 36, at 91-93;
261. Machias Seal Island Dispute at www.siue.edu/GEOGRAPHY/ONLINE/Schmidt.htm & www.wikinfo.org/wiki.php?title=Machias_Seal_Island.
262. For emphasis on the "final and binding" nature of judgments and awards, see, e.g., ICJ President Guillaume's Statement on the 2002 Cameroon v. Nigeria; Equatorial Guinea (Merits) Judgment and the 2006 Barbados/Trinidad and Tobago Award, dispositif para. 385(2), supra notes 4, 27; and UNEEBC President Lauterpacht's Reports of 2005-2007 concerning the 2002 Eritrea/Ethiopia Boundary (Merits) Decision, infra note 81. Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Jurisdiction and Merits) Judgment, President Rosalyn Higgins, paras. 80-141, ICJ Reports 2007 at www.icj-cij.org. Generally,
263. see Rosenne, The Law and Practice (2006), supra note 23, at 1598-1605 [The Res Judicata] and 1605-1606 [The Judgment and Third Parties].
264. In the case of Russia's 2001 Submission, the CLCS in any event merely requested to be provided with charts and geographical coordinates of the Delimitation Agreements (upon their entry into force) with the United States [infra note 113] and Norway for the Bering and Barents Seas where - as between Colombia/Nicaragua in the Caribbean Sea - the shelf beyond 200 nautical miles is not likely to border on the International Seabed Area. See U.S. Reaction to Russian Continental Shelf Claim (2002), 96 AJIL 969-970; Colson (2003), supra note 57, at 97-99, including Map;
265. A.G. Oude Elferink, Submissions of Coastal States to the CLCS in Cases of Unresolved Land or Maritime Disputes, in M.H. Nordquist, J.N. Moore & T.H. Heidar, eds., Legal and Scientific Aspects of Continental Shelf Limits 263, 270-274 (2004) and R. Barnes, D. Freestone and D.M. Ong, eds., in The Law of the Sea (2006), supra note 1, at 161, 167-171.
266. See infra notes 83-84.
267. 2006 Barbados/Trinidad and Tobago Award, paras. 42-45. See also Barbados at www.state.gov/p/wha/ci/c2837.htm & http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Barbados; Trinidad and Tobago at www.state.gov/p/wha/ci/c2899.htm, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trinidad_en_Tobago; UNEP Island Directory at http://islands.unep.ch/lindex.htm, including Barbados at http://islands.unep.ch/ ISC.htm and Trinidad and Tobago at http://islands.unep.ch/IWV.htm.
268. 2006 Barbados/Trinidad & Tobago Award, paras. 44, 47-49, Maps I-II, paras. 95, 114, 161, Map III, paras. 326, 332-334, 356, 373, 381-382, Maps VI-VII, Technical Report; Trinidad's Counter-Memorial, paras. 190-198 ;
269. The Law of the Sea - National Legislation on the Exclusive Economic Zone 21-29 [Barbados's 1978 Act], 369-377 [Trinidad's 1986 Act] (UN 1993);
270. B. Kwiatkowska, "Archipelagic Waters: An Assessment of National Legislation," in R. Wolfrum, ed., Law of the Sea at the Crossroads 107, 117 (Berlin 1991);
271. Trinidad and Tobago's Baselines Notification of 14 May 2004, UN Law of the Sea Circular 41-42 (2004 No.20) and UN Law of the Sea Bulletin 29 (2004 No.55).
272. 2006 Barbados/Trinidad and Tobago Award, paras. 95 and 302-303, quoting these provisions and adding [para. 303] that Trinidad and Tobago's position was confirmed in its 1992 Note Verbale to Barbados.
273. 2006 Barbados/Trinidad and Tobago Award, para. 365, forming part of the Tribunal's reasoning concerning the maritime boundary delimitation in the Eastern sector.
274. See also the Award's para. 270, stating in the context of the dismissal of Barbados's contention that provisional equidistance should be adjusted in the Western sector by taking account of its fisheries interests, that: "The Tribunal finds further confirmation of its conclusions in the undoubted, repeated recognition by Barbados that its fisherfolk were fishing in waters of the EEZ of Trinidad and Tobago, and that, insofar as they so fished without the licensed permission of Trinidad and Tobago, they were subject to lawful arrest." For precedents demonstrating the principle that "the delimitation of sea areas always has an international aspect,"
275. see Anglo/Norwegian Fisheries Judgment, ICJ Reports 1951, 132;
276. as reaffirmed by Denmark (Greenland) v. Norway (Jan Mayen) Separate Opinion of Judge Shahabuddeen, ICJ Reports 1993, 150-151
277. and other decisions quoted by B. Kwiatkowska, Decisions of the World Court Relevant to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea 70 (2002) at www.brill.nl/product_id20709.htm updated as of 2006 at www.law.uu.nl/nilos - Publications, Books.
278. 2006 Barbados/Trinidad & Tobago Award's Map II, paras. 103, 157 and Hearings Day 1, 94-95, 105 [Co-Agent Volterra, 17 October 2005], Day 5, 27-29 [Volterra, 24 October 2005];
279. and CLCS on the UNDOALOS website, supra note 7. On Barbados's measures in the post-Award period,
280. see infra note 117. On initiation in 2006 of the preparation of the Submission to the CLCS by Suriname, see Press Conference ["Surinames expansiedrift voor noordelijke grens"], De Ware Tijd (DWT) [in Dutch] of 11 March 2006 at www.dwtonline.com/website/home.asp?menuid=2; 19 March 2006 at www.stabroeknews.com/index.pl/article_local_news?id=48 383158.
281. 2006 Barbados/Trinidad & Tobago Award, paras. 156-157, Map III, and para. 324.
282. See also main text accompanying supra note 59;
283. and equidistance boundaries anticipated in this area by Prescott & Schofield (2005), supra note 56, at 336-338, 361 and Map at 603.
284. 2006 Barbados/Trinidad and Tobago Award, paras. 51, 164, 168, Map III, 345-348, 371, 374, 381-382;
285. 1942 Trinidad and Tobago/Venezuela Gulf of Paria Treaty, CCV LNTS 221, as analyzed by M.M. Whiteman, Digest of International Law, Vol.4, 789-793 (U.S. Department of State);
286. and as superseded by the 1990 Trinidad and Tobago/Venezuela Delimitation of Submarine Areas Treaty and the 1991 Exchange of Notes, 1654 UNTS 293, 614 & attached Map, reprinted in J.I. Charney & L.M. Alexander, eds., International Maritime Boundaries, Vol. I, Reports Nos. 2-13(1) and 2-13(3), at 639-654, 675-689 (1993);
287. identical Notes Verbales by Guyana to Trinidad and Venezuela of 7 February 2002, UN Law of the Sea Bulletin 62 (2002 No.48) and Note Verbale by Trinidad and Tobago to Guyana of 27 March 2002, id., at 63;
288. news story 'Trinidad/Venezuela Resume Oil and Boundary Talks' of 14 December 2005 at www.vheadline.com/readnews.esp?id=47415; news story 'Trinidad and Tobago/Venezuela Unitisation Treaty to Be Signed Soon' of 19 July 2006 at www.caribbeannetnews.com/cgi-script/csArticles/articles/000024/002413.htm; and infra notes 98-101.
289. 2002 Notes Verbales, supra note 67; 2003 Barbados/Guyana Exclusive Economic Zone Treaty [in force: 5 May 2004], 2277 UNTS 201; www.stabroeknews.com/index.pl/article_affairs?id=6402111; UN Law of the Sea Bulletin 36 (2004 No.55);
290. IMB Vol.V (2005), Report No.2-27, supra note 57, at 3578-3597
291. and its review by A. Oude Elferink, 53 Netherlands International Law Review 145, 148 (2006), noting the likely political dimension of the 2003 Treaty. On contentions by the parties concerning the 2003 Barbados/Guyana Treaty and the Tribunal's finding that it was res inter alios acta in respect of Trinidad and Tobago,
292. see 2006 Barbados/Trinidad and Tobago Award, paras. 10, 40, Map I, paras. 103, 164, 171, Map III, 349 [quoted infra note 92] and para. 358;
293. Barbados's Memorial, paras. 22-24, 92; Trinidad's Counter-Memorial, paras. 26-27, 188; Barbados's Reply, paras. 203-204; and Hearings Day 5, 35-36 [Questions by Arbitrator Lowe, 24 October 2005], Day 6, 11-12 [Co-Agent Volterra, 25 October], Day 8, 14-15 [Counsel Crawford, 28 October 2005]. On rejection by the Tribunal, upon request by both parties, of Guyana's attempt to obtain access to the Barbados/Trinidad and Tobago pleadings, see supra note 15.
294. 2006 Barbados/Trinidad and Tobago Award, Chapter V, paras. 219-245. For doctrinal surveys of such a balanced doctrine of equitable maritime boundary delimitation infra legem, see Sir Humphrey M. Waldock, "The International Court and the Law of the Sea (Cornelius van Vollenhoven Memorial Lecture," T.M.C Asser Institute 1979);
295. Sir Robert Jennings, "Equity and Equitable Principles," (1986) 42 Annuaire Suisse de Droit International 27-38 and "The Principles Governing Marine Boundaries," in Festschrift fur Karl Doehring 398-408 (1989);
296. P. Weil, The Law of Maritime Delimitation - Reflections; (1989);
297. L.D.M. Nelson, "The Roles of Equity in the Delimitation of Maritime Boundaries," (1990) 84 AJIL 837-858;
298. Shabtai Rosenne, An International Law Miscellany, Chapter 7: "The Position of the ICJ on the Foundations of the Principle of Equity in International Law," 201-230 (1993);
299. Plenary Address by the then ICJ President Stephen M. Schwebel on The Contribution of the ICJ to the Development of International Law, in International Law and The Hague's 750th Anniversary 405-416 (TMC Asser 1999) and B. Kwiatkowska, "The ICJ and Equitable Maritime Boundary Delimitation," id., at 61-72;
300. Jonathan I. Charney, "Is International Law Threatened by Multiple International Tribunals?" (1999) 271 RCADI 315-345);
301. N. Antunes, Towards Conceptualization of Maritime Delimitation (2003);
302. Collected Essays of Former ICJ President Guillaume, La Cour Internationale (2003), supra note 19, at 287-318
303. and G. Guillaume, Conclusions, in Le Processus de délimitation maritime: Etude d'un cas fictif, Monaco, 27-29 Mars 2003 390-400 (Bruylant 2004);
304. ICJ Registrar Ph. Couvreur, "Le Règlement juridictionnel," id., at 349-388;
305. Kwiatkowska, "ICJ President Guillaume's Triennium" (2005), supra note 6, at 51-171. For Digests and Commentaries,
306. see International Boundary Cases: The Continental Shelf, Vols. I-II (Cambridge Research Centre for International Law, 1992);
307. Kwiatkowska, Decisions of the World Court (2002), supra note 64, at 57-111;
308. R. Kolb, Case Law on Equitable Maritime Delimitation/Jurisprudence sur les Délimitations Maritimes selon l'Équité (2003);
309. McDorman (2005), supra note 36, at 61-146;
310. International Maritime Boundaries (IMB), Vols. I-II, J.I. Charney & L.M. Alexander, eds. (1993), Vol. III (1998), Vol. IV, J.I. Chamey & R.W. Smith, eds. (2002), Vol. V, D.A. Colson & R.W. Smith, eds. (2005) at www.brill.nl/product_id21989.htm, reviewed by Barbados Counsel J. Paulsson, 100 AJIL 978-980 (2006).
311. 2006 Barbados/Trinidad and Tobago Award, para. 244. See also the explanation (not made previously by either the ICJ or any other Arbitral Tribunal) in the Award's Chapter VIII, para. 373, infra note 99, of how the Tribunal exercised this judicial discretion "within the limits set by the applicable law." This explanation was likely to have been inspired by the Barbados appeal-based on such an appeal repeatedly voiced in the Opinions appended by Judge Schwebel to the ICJ maritime delimitation Judgments - for transparency in the Tribunal's reasoning and decision-making process, in Hearings Day 6, 38-39 [Counsel Reisman, 25 October 2005], 57-59 [Counsel Sir Elihu Lauterpacht],
312. quoting Tunisia/Libya (Intervention) Separate Opinion of Judge Schwebel, ICJ Reports 1981, 35;
313. Tunisia/Libya (Merits) Separate Opinion of Judge Schwebel, ICJ Reports 1982, 99;
314. Libya/Malta (Intervention) Dissenting Opinion of Judge Schwebel, ICJ Reports 1984, 131;
315. Libya/Malta (Merits) Dissenting Opinion of Judge Schwebel, ICJ Reports 1985, 172. Note that Trinidad-appointed Arbitrator Ian Brownlie and Barbados's leading Counsel Sir Elihu Lauterpacht served as Malta's Counsel in the Libya/Malta case. See also reliance upon the Barbados/Trinidad and Tobago Award's emphasis on the need of predictability and stability of juridical and arbitral decisions concerning equitable maritime boundary delimitation, in Nicaragua v. Honduras Hearings, CR 2007/8, 53 para. 59, at 55-56, para. 67, at 59, para. 77 in fine [Counsel Dupuy, 14 March, 2007] at www.icj.cij.org.
316. Canada/United States Delimitation of the Maritime Boundary in the Gulf of Maine Area Judgment, ICJ Reports 1984, 294, para. 95, and Separate Opinion of Judge Schwebel, 357, remarking in the context of calculation of proportionality in the Bay of Fundy that: "On a question such as this, the law is more plastic than formed, and elements of judgment, of appreciation of competing legal and equitable considerations, are dominant." (Emphasis supplied.)
317. 2006 Barbados/Trinidad and Tobago Award, para. 222. See also para. 223, noting the relevance of bilateral treaties and adding that: "In a matter that has so significantly evolved the last 60 years, customary law also has a particular role that, together with judicial and arbitral decisions, helps to shape the considerations that apply to any process of delimitation;" and, e.g., reference to "general international law, as it has developed through the case-law of the Court and arbitral jurisprudence, and through the work of the Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea," in Denmark (Greenland) v. Norway (Jan Mayen) Maritime Delimitation Judgment, ICJ Reports 1993, 62, para. 55. Note also Barnes, Freestone & Ong, The Law of the Sea (2006), supra note 1, at 14, remarking that: "Perhaps nowhere is the impact of general international law felt more strongly than in the context of maritime boundary delimitation," and that Articles 74 and 83 "explicitly mandate the application of general international law;" see references to Articles 74 and 83 in the main text accompanying supra notes 25, 34, 45-48 and elsewhere in the present article.
318. 2006 Barbados/Trinidad and Tobago Award, para. 305;
319. reaffirming Denmark v. Norway Judgment, ICJ Reports 1993, 101-106, paras. 45-63, citing [para. 46], the 1977 Anglo/French Continental Shelf Decision, para. 70 [UNRIAA XVIII, 3, 271; 18 ILM 397, 463 (1970); 54 ILR 139, 213];
320. 1999 Eritrea/Yemen Maritime Delimitation (Phase II) Award, infra note 78, paras. 13, 23-24, 116 and 131-133;
321. Qatar v. Bahrain Maritime Delimitation and Territorial Questions (Merits) Judgment, ICJ Reports 2001, 111 para. 231;
322. Cameroon v. Nigeria; Equatorial Guinea Intervening Land and Maritime Boundary (Merits) Judgment, ICJ Reports 2002, 440-442, paras. 285-290, esp. 288. For the travaux préparatoires of Articles 15, 74 and 83,
323. see M.H. Nordquist, Editor-in-Chief, S.N. Nandán and S. Rosenne, eds., United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea 1982 - A Commentary, Vol. II, 132-143 [Article 15], 796-816 [Article 74], 948-985 [Article 83] (1993).
324. 2006 Barbados/Trinidad and Tobago Award, para. 234, reaffirming Qatar v. Bahrain (Merits) Judgment, ICJ Reports 2001, 93, para. 173 and at 110, para. 225,
325. quoting the Gulf of Maine Judgment, ICJ Reports 1984, 327, para. 194, which was the first to use a single boundary; as further reaffirmed by Cameroon v. Nigeria; Equatorial Guinea Intervening (Merits) Judgment, ICJ Reports 2002, 440-441, paras. 286-287.
326. See also reliance on the 2006 Award, paras. 219-245, in Nicaragua v. Honduras Hearings, CR 2007/2, 23, para. 61 [Counsel Ian Brownlie, 6 March 2007] at www.icj-cij.org
327. See Trinidad and Tobago's Counter-Memorial, paras. 4-7, quoting Denmark (Greenland) v. Norway (Jan Mayen) Maritime Delimitation Separate Opinion of Judge Stephen M. Schwebel, ICJ Reports 1993, 126-127, as supported by, e.g., E. Decaux, L'Affaire Danemark c. Norvège de la délimitation maritime dans la région située entre le Groenland et Jan Mayen - Arrêt de la C.I.J. du 14 juin 1993, 39 Annuaire Français de Droit International (AFDI) 495, 512-513 (1993); R.R. Churchill, The Greenland/Jan Mayen Case and Its Significance (1994), 9 International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law 1, 26;
328. and Trinidad and Tobago's Counter-Memorial, paras. 1-3, noting that the boundary proposed by Barbados in the Western sector suddenly veers south-west to convert the island of Tobago into a semienclave and to deprive its coastline of any effect in terms of generating an EEZ vis-à-vis Barbados; see infra notes 78-84.
329. On Trinidad's "maximalist claim," see infra note 95. See also subsequent Nicaragua v. Honduras Hearings, CR 2007/14, 24-31 [Counsel Jean-Pierre Queneudec, 23 March 2007], 36, para.22 [Counsel Christopher Greenwood], where having proposed in the second round of oral pleadings an adjusted equidistance line, former Trinidad's Counsel and presently Honduras' Counsel Greenwood remarked - in apparent reliance on rejection by the Barbados/Trinidad and Tobago Tribunal of "maximalist claims" - that Honduras has proposed this adjusted boundary line "rather than adopting the popular litigation tactic of advancing a maximalist claim in the hope that the Court will split the difference" at www.icj-cij.org.
330. 2006 Barbados/Trinidad and Tobago Award, paras. 242, 300, 304-307 and 317, quoting [para. 242] Prosper Weil, supra note 69;
331. and reaffirming Qatar v. Bahrain (Merits) Judgment, ICJ Reports 2001, 94, para. 176, at 104, para. 217, at 111, para. 230
332. and Cameroon v. Nigeria; Equatorial Guinea Intervening (Merits) Judgment, ICJ Reports 2002, 441-42 paras. 288-290. Nicaragua v. Honduras Hearings, CR 2007/10, 24, para. 124,
333. quoting Barbados/Trinidad and Tobago Award, para. 242 [Counsel Colson, 16 March 2007], CR 2007/12, 44, para.
334. [Counsel Brownlie, 20 March 2007] at www.icj-cij.org. See also D.A. Colson, "Introduction," in the celebrated IMB Vol. V (2005), supra note 69, at xxx, stressing that "no one can doubt that the provisional equidistance line has become the analytical benchmark against which one evaluates a maritime boundary." On the "delimitation of sea areas always has an international aspect" principle, see supra note 64. On the primary importance of geographical factors,
335. see also the 2006 Barbados/Trinidad and Tobago Award, para. 316,
336. reaffirming "the land dominates the sea" ("la terre domine la mer") principle along the lines of the Canada/USA Gulf of Maine Judgment, ICJ Reports 1984, 312, para. 157 and at 338, para. 226, as reaffirmed by Qatar v. Bahrain (Merits) Judgment, ICJ Reports 2001, 97, para. 185;
337. Hearings, CR 2000/15, 28 [Counsel Weil, 14 June 2000] at www.icj-cij.org; and the 2006 Award's para. 239;
338. see infra notes 80, 87-90, 96, 101. On fisheries factors,
339. see Section 4.3 in the present article below; and on mineral resources factors,
340. see infra notes 93-94. On respecting the boundary of international shipping lanes connecting to the Strait of Bab el-Mandeb and the southern approaches to the Suez Canal,
341. see the 1999 Eritrea/Yemen Maritime Delimitation (Phase II) Award, infra note 78, paras. 18, 24-26, 41, 43, 45-46, 124-128, 155 and 163.
342. On the test of proportionality a posteriori, see infra note 101. For an appraisal of multiple roles played by special circumstances other than geographical ones,
343. see B. Kwiatkowska, "Resource, Navigational and Environmental Factors," in 1MB Vol. V (2005), supra note 69, at 3223-3244, at www.brill.nl/product_id21989.htm.
344. 2006 Barbados/Trinidad and Tobago Award, paras. 86, 162-168, 218, 381-382; supra notes 27 and 66-68;
345. Nicaragua v. Honduras Hearings, CR 2007/5, 20 para. 60 [Counsel Pellet, 9 March 2007] at www.icj-cij.org.
346. Barbados/Trinidad and Tobago Hearings, Day 2, 21-29 [Counsel Reisman, 18 October 2005], noting at 25, that the Barbados/Trinidad and Tobago Tribunal's President Schwebel was notably critical in his 1993 Separate Opinion [ICJ Reports 1993, supra note 75, at 118-129] of the former option of applying the Gulf of Maine exception in the Denmark (Greenland) v. Norway (Jan Mayen) Judgment, notwithstanding this exception's previous rejection by the Libya/Malta Continental Shelf (Merits) Judgment, ICJ Reports 1985, 41, para. 50, the 1985 Guinea/Guinea-Bissau Delimitation of Maritime Boundary Award, paras. 121-123 [25 ILM 251 (1986)] and the 1992 Canada/France (St. Pierre et Miquelon) Award, paras. 83-84, supra note 52. But as Barbados's Counsel Reisman also noted, Judge Schwebel, as the Eritrea/Yemen Tribunal's member, did concur in the unanimous perpetuation of the traditional fishing regime in the 1998 Eritrea/Yemen Sovereignty (Phase I) Award, paras. 525-526 and dispositif para. 527(vi), as clarified in the 1999 Eritrea/Yemen Maritime Delimitation (Phase II) Award, paras. 62-69, 87-112 [UNRIAA XXII, 211, 335;
347. ILR 1 & 119 ILR 417; 40 ILM 900, 983 (2001); PCA at www.pca-cpa.org/ENGLISH/RPC/; Yemen Gateway at www.al-bab.com/yemen/pol/int.htm] .
348. See W.M. Reisman, Case Reports on the Eritrea/Yemen Awards (Phase I), 93 AJIL 668-682 (1999), and (Phase II) (2000), 94 AJIL 721-736);
349. B. Kwiatkowska, "The Eritrea/Yemen Arbitration: Landmark Progress in the Acquisition of Territorial Sovereignty and Equitable Maritime Boundary Delimitation," (2001) 32 ODIL 1-25 and 8 IBRU Boundary and Security Bulletin 66-86 (2000, No.1) at www.dur.ac.uk/ibru/resources/links & www.dur.ac.uk/ibru/publications/bulletin, revised and updated as of 15 June 2006 at www.law.uu.nl/nilos - Publications, Online Papers;
350. R. Volterra, "Two LOSC Eritrea/Yemen and Qatar v. Bahrain Cases" (2001) at www.gmat.unsw.edu.au/ablos/ABLOS01Folder/ VOLTERRA.PDF. On Trinidad's characterization of Barbados's adjustment of equidistance as a "maximalist" claim, see supra note 75.
351. See references supra note 78.
352. 2006 Barbados/Trinidad and Tobago Award, paras. 72, 88-150, 186-187, 228 [noting that: "The quest for neutral criteria of a geographic character prevailed in the end over area-specific criteria such as geomorphological aspects, or resource-specific criteria such as distribution of fish stocks, with a very few exceptions (notably Jan Mayen), (sic) singularity of which is also stressed in para. 269];" the Award's para. 241 [quoting the "catastrophic repercussions" exception of the Canada/United States Delimitation of the Maritime Boundary in the Gulf of Maine Area Judgment, ICJ Reports 1984, 342, para. 237], the Award's paras. 246-271, supporting Trinidad's contentions that Barbados's fishing off Tobago did not amount to traditional, artisanal fishery but rather to large-scale semi-industrial operations of an ice-boat fleet [paras. 254, 266] and that the results of lack of access by Barbados to the waters in issue would not be "catastrophic" [paras. 256-258, 267-270 and supra note 64] and noting that "injury does not equate with catastrophe," [para. 267] Map VI, paras. 277-279, rejecting the Eritrea/Yemen Awards as a precedent for granting Barbados fishery access by means of a remedy infra petita in the present case, and dispositif para. 384(iii); supra notes 29, 75. For the rejection of the post-1951 Anglo/Norwegian Fisheries Judgment's speculations by the eminent Sir Gerald Fitzmaurice relied upon by Barbados, see the Award's paras. 134 and 269; Barbados's Reply, paras. 391-392 and Trinidad's Rejoinder, paras. 120-124;
353. Hearings Day 2, 16-19 [Counsel Reisman, 18 October 2005], Day 4, 45-46 [Counsel Greenwood, 21 October], Day 5, 59-60 [Reisman, 24 October], Day 8, 100-101, 110 [Greenwood, 28 October 2005], 129 [Agent Jeremie].
354. 2006 Barbados/Trinidad and Tobago Award, para. 279 [supra note 80] and para. 282, quoting Qatar v. Bahrain (Merits) Judgment, ICJ Reports 2001, 110, para. 223 and at 117, dispositif, para. 252(2)
355. (b). See also Declaration of Judge Herczegh, id., at 216, Separate Opinion of Judge Parra-Aranguren, 223, para. 2, and Dissenting Opinion of Judge ad hoc Torres Bernardez (designated by Qatar), 443-445, paras. 544-545 and 550, pointing out that this right of innocent passage falls within the scope of the res judicata of the Judgment concerning the Hawars; Kwiatkowska, ICJ President Schwebel's Triennium and Beyond (2002), supra note 1, at 56-57. Other precedents, whose relevance - in terms of remedies infra petita which, in the Tribunal's view, they did not exemplify - was rejected by the 2006 Barbados/Trinidad and Tobago Award, paras. 277-278 and 280-283, included: Icelandic Fisheries Jurisdiction (Merits) Judgments, ICJ Reports 1974, 3, 175;
356. Western Sahara Advisory Opinion, ICJ Reports 1975, 18;
357. Right of Passage Judgment, ICJ Reports 1960, 6;
358. and the 2002 UN Eritrea/Ethiopia Boundary (Merits) Decision, 41 ILM 1057 (2002) and Eritrea/Ethiopia (Determinations) of 7 November 2002, President Sir Elihu Lauterpacht CBE QC, Arbitrators B. Ajibola, W.M. Reisman, Judge S.M. Schwebel and Sir Arthur Watts KCMG QC, overview presented in Reports of the Secretary-General on Ethiopia and Eritrea, UN Docs S/2005/142, paras. 13-16 and Annex I [President Lauterpacht's 16th Report] with Enclosures 1-4 (2005), S/2006/749, Annex II [President Lauterpacht's 21st Report] (2006) at www.un.org/Docs/journal/asp/ws.asp?m=s/2006/749, UNEEBC Statement with Annex of 27 November 2006, S/2007/33, Annex II [President Lauterpacht's 22nd Report] (2007) at www.un.org/Docs/journal/asp/ws.asp?m=s/ 2007/33 and the PCA at www.pca-cpa.org/ENGLISH/RPC/; as analyzed by Donaldson & Pratt (2004), supra note 56, at 502, 506-507 & Map;
359. Kwiatkowska, "The World Court" (2006), supra note 1, at 455-457. With respect to the Eritrea/Ethiopia Boundary precedent, the 2006 Barbados/Trinidad and Tobago Award, paras. 278, 281, held that the Eritrea/Ethiopia (Determinations) were explicitly tied to the Commission's power to take decisions "on any matter it finds necessary for the performance of its mandate to delimit and demarcate the boundary," whereas in the present case, there was no "necessity" for any action on fisheries access in order to implement the Barbados/Trinidad and Tobago boundary decided upon by the Annex VII Tribunal.
360. For an anticipation of reinforcement of that detour in international jurisprudence, see Kwiatkowska (2005), supra note 76, at 3231-3235; as supported by V. Prescott & G. Triggs, Islands and Rocks and Their Role in Maritime Delimitation, in IMB Vol.V (2005), supra note 69, at 3245, 3270.
361. 2006 Barbados/Trinidad & Tobago Award, paras. 79, 215-217, 258, 272-283, dispositif para. 384(iii); Hearings Day 5, 72 [Arbitrator Lowe's Question, 24 October 2005], Day 8, 15 [Counsel Greenwood, 28 October 2005], 69-70 [Counsel Wordsworth], 119-121, 125 [Greenwood], 129 [Agent Jeremie]. Note that while the 1999 ITLOS Southern Bluefin Tuna (Provisional Measures) Order, supra note 36, did not consider whether LOSC Article 297(3) applied or, if so, whether it was waived (even though Australia argued that it did not apply because the dispute exclusively concerned high seas fishing by Japan, ITLOS/PV.99/20, 10-11 [Counsel Williams, 18 August 1999] at www.itlos.org), the 2000 Southern Bluefin Tuna (Jurisdiction and Admissibility) Award, supra note 20, paras. 41(b)(c) and 61;
362. Hearings Vol. II [Counsel Burmester, 8 May 2000], Vol. III [Counsel Lowe, 10 May] and Vol. IV [Counsels Crawford and Burmester, 11 May 2000] at www.worldbank.org/icsid, could be regarded as having established that the Southern Bluefin Tuna dispute was not covered by the automatic exception of LOSC Article 297(3) and that the dispute over the high seas part of straddling and highly migratory stocks could by itself be subjected to the compulsory procedures of LOSC Part XV, Section 2.
363. 2006 Barbados/Trinidad and Tobago Award, paras. 284-293 and jurisprudence relied upon therein [infra note 85] and dispositif para. 385(3);
364. supra note 30; and commitments made by the Agents, in Hearings Day 1, 12-14 [Agent Mottley, 17 October 20051, Day 8, 128, 130 [Agent Jeremie, 28 October 2005].
365. On the restrictive Lake Lanoux standard applied in the Award's para. 292 with respect to "the reality and nature of an obligation to negotiate an agreement," see supra note 48. On negotiations carried out in a follow-up to the 2006 Barbados/Trinidad and Tobago Award on the new Fisheries Agreement, see Statements quoted infra note 117.
366. 2006 Barbados/Trinidad and Tobago Award, para. 291, note 26, quoting pronouncements made on unilateral declarations, in Australia v. France Nuclear Tests Judgment, ICJ Reports 1974, 267-270, paras. 42-52, and New Zealand v. France Nuclear Tests Judgment, id., 472-475, paras. 45-55;
367. Burkina Faso/Mali Frontier Dispute Judgment, ICJ Reports 1986, 574, para. 40;
368. 1986 Canada/France Filleting in the Gulf of St. Lawrence Award, President Paul de Visscher, para. 63(2) [UNRIAA XIX, 225; 82 ILR 591] ;
369. 1999 Southern Bluefin Tuna (Provisional Measures) Order, supra note 36, paras. 83-84;
370. 2001 Mox Plant (Provisional Measures) Order, supra note 33, paras. 78-80;
371. 2003 Malaysia v. Singapore (Provisional Measures) Order, supra note 34, paras. 76-81;
372. and 2006 Barbados/Trinidad and Tobago Award, para. 291, n. 27, quoting pronouncements made on the role of the Agent as the intermediary between the state and the Tribunal, in 1902 USA v. Russia Cape Horn Pigeon, James Hamilton Lewis, C.H. White & Kate and Anna Award [UNRIAA IX, 59, at 60-61;
373. AJIL 509 (1928)];
374. 1928 France v. Mexico Georges Pinson Award [UNRIAA V, 327, at 355-356];
375. 1907 Hague Convention for the Pacific Settlement of International Disputes, Article 62;
376. and the latest Argentina v. Uruguay Pulp Mills on the River Uruguay (Provisional Measures) Order, ICJ Reports 2006, President Rosalyn Higgins, paras. 56 and 83-84, at www.icj-cij.org.
377. See also generally, I. Brownlie, Principles of Public International Law 641-644 (1998) and 612-614 (2003);
378. and on the role played by commitments made by the British Agent during the Mox Plant proceedings, see Kwiatkowska, The Ireland v. United Kingdom Mox Plant Case (2003), supra note 37, at 35-36.
379. See supra note 84. Note that this unquestioned exclusivity of the coastal state's sovereign rights over fisheries in its EEZ provided a rationale for the automatic exception set forth in LOSC Article 297(3) referred to supra in note 83. For a recent assessment of these rights,
380. see E. Franckx and Ph. Gautier, eds., The Exclusive Economic Zone and the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, 1982-2000 (Bruylant 2003). Note also that in a follow-up to the Barbados/Trinidad and Tobago Award, Trinidad and Tobago ratified the 1995 UN Fish Stocks Agreement on 25 September 2006, see www.un.org/News/Press/ docs/2006/lt4399.doc.htm; this Agreement was ratified by Barbados in the year 2000, see www.un.org/Depts/los/, and see M.W. Lodge and S.N. Nandan, "Some Suggestions Toward Better Implementation of the 1995 UN Fish Stocks Agreement," (2005) 20 IJMCL 345-379.
381. 2006 Barbados/Trinidad and Tobago Award, paras. 224-227, 234 [supra note 74], 298, emphasizing coexistence of the continental shelf and the EEZ as separate institutions which are covered by separate LOSC Parts V and VI, and quoting, inter alia, the Libya/Malta Continental Shelf (Merits) Judgment, ICJ Reports 1985, 33, para. 33, as reaffirmed by the Qatar v. Bahrain Maritime Delimitation and Territorial Questions (Merits) Judgment, ICJ Reports 2001, 110, para. 226.
382. 2006 Barbados/Trinidad and Tobago Award, paras. 121-124, 308-316, 355, also rejecting analogies to judicial and arbitral decisions-including the 1969 North Sea Judgment, the 1977 Anglo/French Decision, the 1984 Gulf of Maine Judgment and the 2001 Qatar v. Bahrain (Merits) Judgment - and the 1953 Report of the International Hydrographic Organization, relied upon by Trinidad and Tobago in justification of its approach.
383. 2006 Barbados/Trinidad and Tobago Award, para. 329 and paras. 325-334, 350, 356. On Trinidad and Tobago's baselines conforming with LOSC Part IV, see supra note 62.
384. 2006 Barbados/Trinidad and Tobago Award, supra note 89 and paras. 114-116, 230-233, stressing the objective nature of the criteria of the length and configuration of the relevant coasts, contributing along with the objective nature of the equidistance method to predictability and stability of equitable maritime boundary delimitation infra legem. On the Tribunal's two-stage decision-making process, see supra note 76.
385. 2006 Barbados/Trinidad and Tobago Award, paras. 163, 177, 180, 340, 342-344; Barbados's Reply, para. 186 and Hearings Day 4, 69-71, 102-104, alleging that the Dominica-proposed extension of the boundary beyond Dominica's 200 nautical miles, but into France's EEZ, was opposed by France's then Legal Adviser Gilbert Guillaume (ICJ President in 2000-2003) [Counsel Crawford, 21 October 2005], Day 6, 40 [Counsel Reisman, 25 October 2005]; 1987 Dominica/France (Guadeloupe and Martinique) Delimitation Treaty, IMB Vol. I, supra note 69, Report No.2-15, at 705. On the Barbados/France (Guadeloupe and Martinique) Delimitation Negotiations initiated in a follow-up to the 2006 Award, see infra note 117.
386. 2006 Barbados/Trinidad and Tobago Award, para. 349 and other Award holdings and sources concerning the 2003 Barbados/Guyana Treaty,
387. quoted supra in note 68. See also reliance on the Award, paras. 344-349, in Nicaragua v. Honduras Hearings, CR 2007/1, 68, para. 64 [Counsel Oude Elferink, 5 March 2007] at www.icj-cij.org.
388. 2006 Barbados/Trinidad and Tobago Award, para. 106 [supra note 80], quoting the Cameroon v. Nigeria; Equatorial Guinea Intervening (Merits) Judgment, ICJ Reports 2002, 447-448, para. 304 and the 2006 Award's paras. 361-366 [supra note 64]. Note that similarly, in view of the holdings of the Indonesia/Malaysia Sovereignty over Pulau Ligitan and Pulau Sipadan (Merits) Judgment, ICJ Reports 2002, 664, para. 79, the influence of oil practice on the actual course of the pending boundary in the Celebes Sea seems unlikely. On their negotiations, lite.php?id=175163 and 'Malaysia's Oil Maps' at www.rigzone.com/news/image_results.asp?ctry_id=125.
389. see, e.g., news story 'Indonesia/Malaysia May Develop Disputed Area Together' of 16 January 2006 at www.bemama.com/bernama/v3/news
390. 2006 Barbados/Trinidad and Tobago Award, para. 364, quoting Greece v. Turkey (Provisional Measures) Order, ICJ Reports 1976, 10, para. 30; Hearings Day 4, 60-61 [Counsel Crawford, 21 October 2005], Day 5, 25-26 [Co-Agent Volterra].
391. 2006 Barbados/Trinidad and Tobago Award, paras. 170-173, Map III, paras. 308, 319, 322, 341, 350-360, Map VI and Hearings Day 1, 28-31, 35 [Counsel Sir Elihu Lauterpacht, 17 October 2005], Day 2, 68-70 [Counsel Paulsson, 18 October], Day 4, 74-75 [Counsel Crawford, 21 October], Day 6, 17-31 [Paulsson, 25 October], 54-57 [Sir Elihu Lauterpacht], 70 [Agent Mottley], Day 8, 79, 20-25 [Crawford, 28 October 2005].
392. See also equidistance boundaries anticipated by Prescott & Schofield (2005), supra note 56, at 336-338, concluding that: "The main effects of lines of equidistance in this area prevent Venezuela and Trinidad and Tobago claiming a full EEZ of 200 miles and from making any claim to the continental margin of the Atlantic coast beyond 200 miles."
393. North Sea Continental Shelf Judgment, ICJ Reports 1969, 49-50, para. 91;
394. as reaffirmed by all subsequent judicial and arbitral decisions, including Cameroon v. Nigeria; Equatorial Guinea Intervening (Merits) Judgment, ICJ Reports 2002, 435, para. 279, at 437, para. 281 in fine, at 443-444, para. 295.
395. 2006 Barbados/Trinidad and Tobago Award, paras. 367-368, adding [para. 368 in fine] with respect to the relationship of CS and EEZ rights in the proposed area of overlapping EEZ/Outer CS, that: "The Tribunal therefore takes no position on the substance of the problem posed by the argument advanced by Trinidad and Tobago;" and other references quoted supra note 53.
396. See also Postscript on the "unworkable" EEZ/Outer CS overlap in the main text accompanying notes 102-115, infra.
397. Barbados/Trinidad and Tobago Award, paras. 232, 321, para. 375, stressing that: "In effecting this adjustment the Tribunal has been mindful that, as far as possible, there should be no cut-off effects arising from the delimitation and that the line as drawn by the Tribunal avoids the encroachment that would result from an unadjusted equidistance line;" para. 379 [infra note 101] and Hearings Day 8, 16-17 [Judge Brownlie's Question, reply by Counsel Crawford, 28 October 2005]. See also Day 7, 32 [President Schwebel's Question, 27 October 2005], reply at 32-33 [Counsel Greenwood] and in Day 8, 29-31 [Crawford].
398. Barbados/Trinidad and Tobago Award, paras. 320-321, 331-334, 369-375, referring in para. 373 to the Tribunal's exercising "judicial discretion within the limits set out by the applicable law" [supra note 70], paras. 379-382, dispositif pan. 385(1), Maps V-VII and Technical Report; supra notes 27 and 67.
399. See emphasis on this critical element by Kwiatkowska, The Barbados/Trinidad and Tobago Case Report, supra note 14. For the 2006 Barbados/Trinidad and Tobago Award's holdings related to the 1990 Trinidad and Tobago/Venezuela Delimitation of Submarine Areas Treaty [1654 UNTS 293, 614] as establishing the southern limit of Trinidad and Tobago's entitlement to maritime areas,
400. see supra note 67 and 92. See also the 2006 Award's paras. 345-348, noting [paras. 345-346] in the context of a northwards - adverse to Trinidad - shift in the equidistance line under that Treaty, that Barbados cannot be required to "compensate" Trinidad and Tobago for the boundary it agreed with Venezuela. On that boundary appearing to be based upon the assumption that the disputed Esequibo land belongs to Venezuela and not to Guyana, see Guyana's 2002 protests against the 1990 Treaty, supra notes 67-68;
401. Barbados's Reply, paras. 24-32, 74 n. 130, para. 87 n. 173, Trinidad's Rejoinder, para. 197, supra note 8 and Barbados/Trinidad and Tobago Hearings Day 6, 14-15 [President Schwebel's Question, Co-Agent Volterra, 25 October 2005], Day 8, 132-133 [Agent Jeremie, 28 October 2005];
402. 1899 UK(Guyana)/Venezuela Boundary Award, President Frederic Martens, No.207/Stuyt; 43 AJIL 523-530 (1949);
403. AJIL 683-693, 720-727 (1950)] and J. Gillis Wetter, The International Arbitral Process: Public and Private 39-44, 83-109, 126-127, 145-148, 168-175 Vol III Oceana Publications Inc. (1979);
404. B.H. Oxman, "International Maritime Boundaries: Political, Strategic, and Historical Considerations," (1994/5) 26 Inter-American Law Review 243, 266-267;
405. UN Guyana/Venezuela Mediation of 29 September 2003, see at www.un.org/News/briefings/docs/2003/db092903.doc.htm, 12 January 2006 see at www.stabroeknews. com/index.pl/article_editorial?id=41278928 and 19 March 2006 see at www.stabroeknews.com/index.pl/article_local_news?id=48383158 & www.mre.gov.ve/Esequibo. On the loss by Venezuela of UNSC seat (to Panama) due to, inter alia, its claim to Esequibo, see 2 October 2006 at www.caribbeannetnews.com/cgi-script/csArticles/articles/000035/003517.htm and 7 November 2006 at www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID= 20524&Cr- security&Cr1-council & www.un.org/News/Press/docs//2006/ga10528.doc.htm.
406. See also Guyana/Venezuela Mediation of 26 January 2007 at www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2007/sgsm10854.doc.htm. On the potential Guyana/Suriname/Venezuela tripoint depending on the sovereignty over disputed Esequibo,
407. see C.G. Lathrop, Tripoint Issues in Maritime Boundary Delimitation, in IMB Vol. V (2005), supra note 69, at 3305, 3334;
408. 2007 Guyana/Suriname (Jurisdiction and Merits) Award, supra note 13.
409. 2006 Barbados/Trinidad and Tobago Award, paras. 119-120, 158-161, 232-233, 236-240, stressing [para. 240] that proportionality "serves to check the line of delimitation that might have been arrived at in consideration of various other factors, so as to ensure that the end result is equitable and thus in accordance with the applicable law under LOSC;" and quoting [para. 237] North Sea Judgment, ICJ Reports 1969, 50, para. 91;
410. Libya/Malta (Merits) Judgment, ICJ Reports 1985, 46, para. 59;
411. Denmark (Greenland) v. Norway (Jan Mayen) Judgment, ICJ Reports 1993, 68, para. 68; the 2006 Award's paras. 326-329, 335-338, 376-379, quoting [para. 377] Canada/USA Gulf of Maine Judgment, ICJ Reports 1984, 323, para. 185, and concluding [in the 2006 Award's para. 379] that: "The Tribunal is also satisfied that the deflection effected does not result in giving effect to the relevant coastal frontages in a manner that could itself be considered disproportionate, as would be the case if the coastal frontages in question were projected straight out to the east. The bending of the equidistance line reflects a reasonable influence of the coastal frontages on the overall area of delimitation, with a view to avoiding reciprocal encroachments which would otherwise result in some form of inequity." On the 8.2:1 ratio of the eastward-facing coastal frontage of Trinidad and Tobago of 74.9 miles and that of Barbados of 9.2 miles, see the Award's paras. 159, 326, 352 and Hearings Day 1, 30 [Counsel Sir Elihu Lauterpacht, 17 October 2005]; Tanaka (2006), supra note 14, at 530-531. For analysis of the treatment of the proportionality test in the previous judicial and arbitral decisions, see also Kwiatkowska, "ICJ President Guillaume's Triennium" (2005), supra note 6, at 126-127, 155.
412. See references quoted supra in notes 75 and 97.
413. On the 1978 Australia/Papua New Guinea Torres Strait Treaty, 18 ILM 291 (1979), see the 2006 Barbados/Trinidad & Tobago Award, paras. 177, 235;
414. Trinidad's Counter-Memorial, para. 380;
415. Barbados's Reply, para. 164; Trinidad's Rejoinder, para. 137; Hearings Day-4, 104-105 [Counsel Crawford, 21 October 2005]. See also Tunisia/Libya (Merits) Dissent by Judge Oda, ICJ Reports 1982, 234;
416. Pleadings, Vol. II, 212, 268 [Libya's Counter-Memorial], Vol. V, 246 [Question II of Judge Schwebel, 9 October 1981], 504 [Libya's Reply to Schwebel];
417. Gulf of Maine Pleadings, Vol. TV, 443 [US Counter-Memorial], Vol. VI, 169 [Counsel Weil, 5 April 1984], State Practice Vol. I, 529; Gulf of Fonseca Hearings, C 4/CR 91/45, 19 [Counsel Bowett, 10 June 1991], CR 91/46, 52-53 [Counsel Sir Elihu Lauterpacht, 11 June], CR 91/47, 27 [Bowett, 12 June], CR 91/48, 29 [Lauterpacht, 13 June 1991];
418. Cameroon v. Nigeria; Equatorial Guinea Intervening (Merits) Hearings, CR 2002/6, 71 [Co-Agent Pellet, 25 February 2002] at www.icj-cij.org. On recent unsuccessful attempts of Australia and Papua New Guinea, under the auspices of the IMO, to establish compulsory pilotage for the Torres Strait,
419. see B. Sage, Precautionary Coastal States' Jurisdiction, 37 Ocean Development & International Law (ODIL) 359, 365 (2006).
420. 2006 Barbados/Trinidad and Tobago Award, paras 174, 184; Hearings Day 6, 54-55 [Counsel Sir Elihu Lauterpacht, 25 October 2005]; and the 2006 Report of the ILA Committee on Legal Issues of the Outer Continental Shelf, supra note 53.
421. Whiteman, Digest of International Law (1965), supra note 67, at 752-760 and 945-962 [Truman Proclamations], 763-764, 1060-1070, 1089-1096 and 1200-1201 [CEP and other Latin American states];
422. F. Orrego Vicuña, The Exclusive Economic Zone: Regime and Legal Nature under International Law 3 (Cambridge 1989), stressing that the EEZ "originates in the proclamation by the President of Chile in 1947;
423. " and reliance in jurisprudence on both Truman Proclamations [40 AJIL 45-47 (1946)] as marking the origins of the EEZ, in Kwiatkowska, Decisions of the World Court (2002), supra note 64, at 39, 70. On donation by the United States of President Truman's portrait to the United Nations on 19 June 2006,
424. see www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2006/sgsm10519.doc.htm & www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp? NewsID=18919&Cr=United&Cr1=states.
425. 2006 Barbados/Trinidad and Tobago Award, paras. 178, 180-185, stressing [para. 185] that: "Trinidad and Tobago's approach is thus a formula for inequity in this case and for chaos and conflict in any other cases in which it might be applied;" Barbados Reply, paras. 157-158; Hearings Day 4, 60-61, 104 [Counsel Crawford, 21 October 2005], Day 5, 25-26 [Co-Agent Volterra, 24 October 2005]
426. 2006 Barbados/Trinidad and Tobago Award, para. 244, quoted in the main text accompanying supra note 70; and the Award's para. 368, quoted supra note 97.
427. For this reason Barbados was correct in arguing, in Hearings Day 1, 33 [Counsel Sir Elihu Lauterpacht, 17 October 2005], Day 6, 55-56, 59 [Lauterpacht, 25 October 2005], that Article 56(3) prescribes a method and not, as Trinidad and Tobago argued, subordination of the EEZ to the continental shelf or priority of the shelf rights over EEZ rights. This approach conforms to ICJ Judge Shigeru Oda's theory of EEZ-CS parallelism, as discussed by B. Kwiatkowska, The 200 Mile Exclusive Economic Zone in the New Law of the Sea 6-44 (1989).
428. See also 2006 Barbados/Trinidad & Tobago Award, para. 182;
429. Barbados's Reply, para. 157; Hearings Day 4, 82-88 [Counsel Greenwood, 21 October 2005], Day 7, 32-33 [President Schwebel's Question, Counsel Greenwood, 27 October], 34-36 [Arbitrator Lowe's Questions, Greenwood], Day 8, 50-52 [Counsel Crawford, 28 October 2005].
430. On uncertainties surrounding the exercise of these vessel-source pollution-related rights, see Sage (2006), supra note 103, at 359-387.
431. On difficulties surrounding the distinction between some military intelligence gathering and hydrographic surveys, see infra note 111.
432. See supra note 106. Note that in the case of some uses, e.g., bunkering of fishing vessels which the ITLOS did not find necessary to resolve in the 1999 MV Saiga (Jurisdiction and Merits) Judgment, supra note 13, it would moreover be controversial whether they fall under EEZ sovereign rights or jus communicationis and such doubts would have to be resolved pursuant to the Castaneda formula of "residual rights" laid down in Article LOSC 59. On the controversial issue of the legal regime of bunkering of the fishing vessels, see B.H. Oxman & V. Bantz, "The MV Saiga Case Report," (2000) 94 AJIL 140;
433. and appraisal by ITLOS Judge (1996-2006) David Anderson, "The Regulation of Fishing and Related Activities in Exclusive Economic Zones," in The Exclusive Economic Zone (2003), supra note 86, at 31-49;
434. K.M. Braide, The Political Economy of Illegal Bunkering in Nigeria (2004) at www.nigerdeltacongress.com/particles/ political_economy_of_illegal_bun.htm. On uncertainties surrounding the boarding - within jus communicationis - of ships engaged in the transportation of WMD and terrorists,
435. see supra note 9;
436. and news story 'New Coast Guard Base of Barbados $ 59.5 Million' of 22 August 2006 at www.barbadosadvocate.com/NewViewNewsleft.cfm?Record=27459. On these latter uncertainties, as well as those related to military intelligence gathering and hydrographic surveys [as falling under scientific research rights of a coastal state or jus communicationis of all other states] in the EEZ,
437. see MJ. Valencia & K. Akimoto, "Guidelines for Navigation and Overflight in the Exclusive Economic Zone," (2006) 30 Marine Policy 704-711, at www.elsevier.com/locate/marpol.
438. If a non-party (such as in this case the United States) could be considered as falling within the ambit of "entities other than States Parties" in the meaning of Article 13 of the LOSC Annex VII referred to infra note 122, the new Gulf of Maine case could be brought to an Annex VII Arbitral Tribunal. On the prospective U.S. choice of Annex VII Arbitration under LOSC Article 287 and the ASIL Roundtable Discussion: Should the United States Join the Convention?, chaired by Former ICJ President Stephen M. Schwebel at the Symposium in Remembrance of Louis B. Sohn on 24 October 2006, see supra note 9.
439. These options are based on my consultations held with Dr. Alex Oude Elferink of NILOS on 23 August 2006. The precedent of granting the United States an additional EEZ area in the Bering Sea was established by the so far unratified 1990 Russia/USA Bering Sea and Arctic Maritime Boundary Agreement, 29 ILM 941 (1990);
440. IMB Vol. I, supra note 69, Report No. 1-6, at 447-460;
441. Oxman (1994/1995), supra note 100, at 283-284; A. Oude Elferink, Arctic Maritime Delimitations, in A. Oude Elferink & D.R. Rothwell, eds., The Law of the Sea and Polar Maritime Delimitation and Jurisdiction 179, 182-183 (2001);
442. Oude Elferink (2006), supra note 59.
443. See also references quoted supra note 57. On the well-advanced Canada/U.S. cooperation in the Gulf of Maine, see UN Secretary-General's Law of the Sea Report, UN Doc. A/53/456, para. 263 (1998) at www.un.org/Depts/los; Canada/US Boundary Commission at www. internationalboundarycommission.org; and on the Northeast Consortium - U.S. Congressional policy response (since 1999) in the Gulf of Maine and Georges Bank fisheries, see T.W Hartley & R.A. Robertson, The Case of Northeast Consortium, 30 Marine Policy 580-592 (2006) at www.elsevier.com/locate/ marpol.
444. See supra note 57.
445. 1992 Canada/France Award, supra note 52; France's Extraplac Submission to the CLCS at www.extraplac.fr/FR/extensions/geographie.php; BBC Interviews of 6-8 March 2006 at http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/ crossing_continents/4781886.stm & http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/ crossing_continents/4778536.stm. On the preceding Report prepared for France by Ron Macnab of Canada's Geological Survey, testifying that the technical seabed conditions (which were uncertain at the time of 1992 Award) are favourable for extension of the shelf beyond 200 nautical miles in the region south of Newfoundland and Saint Pierre et Miquelon,
446. see 17 November 2005 at www.vivelecanada.ca/article.php/2005111708555716, www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2005/11/17/miquelon_051117.html & www.cbc.ca/nl/story/nf_stpierre_20051118.html.
447. On the two main ways of contributing by the World Court - and likewise Arbitral Tribunals, the ITLOS and other third-party fora - to the peaceful settlement of disputes, directly as between the parties to the respective disputes, and indirectly by means of their contributions to the development of international law, see remarks in the context of Article 59 of the ICJ Statute by then ICJ President Stephen M. Schwebel, The Impact of the International Court of Justice, in Boutros Boutros-Ghali Amicorum Discipulorumque Liber: Paix, Développement, Démocratie 663, 668 (Bruylant, Bruxelles 1998);
448. S. Rosenne, The Perplexities (2001), supra note 40, at 66-70;
449. I. Brownlie, Why Do States Take Disputes to the ICJ?, in Liber Amicorum Judge Oda (2002), supra note 5, at 829-834;
450. Guillaume, La Cour (2003), supra note 19, at 38.
451. In all Statements issued upon the delivery of well-balanced Award, Barbados and Trinidad and Tobago (each claiming victory for itself) commended the maritime boundary and hoped for conclusion of a new fisheries agreement. See, e.g., 12 April 2006 at www.barbadosadvocate.com/NewViewNewsleft.cfm?Record= 25419 & www.barbadosadvocate.com/NewView Newsleft.cfm?Record=25408; 13 April at www.caribbeannetnews.com/cgi-script/csArticles/articles/000012/001253.htm and 17 April at www.thetobagonews.com/index.pl/article?id=6536488; 24 April at www.barbadosadvocate.com/NewViewNewsleft.cfm?Record=25583; 26 April at www.barbadosadvocate.com/NewViewNewsleft.cfm?Record-25617, also noting Barbados's preparation of its Submission to the CLCS [supra note 65]; 28 April www.barbadosadvocate.com/NewViewNewsleft.cfm?Record=25630; 13 June at www.barbadosadvocate.com/NewViewNewsleft.cfm?Record=26369; 29 June 2006 atwww.barbadosadvocate.com/NewViewNewsleft.cfm?Record=26599.
452. See also 'Trinidad Oil' of 28 April 2006 at www.thetobagonews.com/index. pl/article?id=6706022; 'Barbados Oil Bidding and Drilling in 2006-2009' of 22 April 2006 www.barbadosadvocate.com/NewViewNewsleft.cfm?Record=25567; 29 June at www.upi.com/Energy/view.php?StoryID=20060629-031852-9292r and 25 August 2006 at www.barbadosadvocate.com/NewViewNewsleft.cfm?Record=27517. On ratification by Trinidad and Tobago of the UN Fish Stocks Agreement in a follow-up to the 2006 Award,
453. see supra note 86. On undertaking in a follow-up to the 2006 Award of Barbados/France (Guadeloupe and Martinique) Delimitation Negotiations, see 18 June 2006 at www.barbadosadvocate.com/NewViewNewsleft.cfm?Record=26431 and supra note 91.
454. On OAS Belize/Guatemala Territorial/Maritime Mediation,
455. see Sir Elihu Lauterpacht CBE QC, Judge Stephen M. Schwebel, Shabtai Rosenne & Francisco Orrego Vicuña, Joint Legal Opinion on Guatemala's Territorial Claim to Belize (2002) at www.belize-guatemala.gov. bz/library/legal_opinion/welcome.html & http://vandeplaspublishing.com;
456. Belize/Guatemala Territorial Differendum Proposals (with Maps) from the OAS Facilitators of 30 August 2002 and Belize/Guatemala Agreement to Establish a Transition Process and Confidence Building Measures of 7 February 2003 at www.belize-guatemala.gov.bz/;
457. OAS Permanent Council Resolution CP/RES.836 (1353/03) of 12 February 2003 on Support for the Peaceful Resolution of the Belize/Guatemala Territorial Differendum at www.oas.org/consejo/resolutions/res836.htm; Belize Barrier Reef-Reef Reserve System athttp://whc.unesco.org/sites/764.htm;
458. OAS Press Releases of 7 October 2003 at www.oas.org/OASpage/ press_releases/press_release.asp?sCodigo=E-193/03 and 10 May 2004 at www.oas.org/OASpage/press_releases/press_release.asp?sCodigo=E-082/04;
459. OAS Documents at http://oas.org/documents/eng/belizeguatemala.asp;
460. J.G. Merrills, "The Belize/Guatemala Territorial Dispute and the Legal Opinion," (2002) 2 The Global Community Yearbook of International Law and Jurisprudence 77-95 at www.oceanalaw.com/main_product_details.asp? ID=298.
461. On UN Guyana/Venezuela Mediation, see supra note 100.
462. For the subsequently rendered 2007 Guyana/Suriname Maritime Delimitation (Jurisdiction and Merits) Award,
463. see supra notes 9, 13, 46, 68 and 100.
464. See references to the Aves Island dispute, in Barbados/Trinidad and Tobago Hearings, Day 6, 16 [Co-Agent Volterra, 25 October 2005], 68-69 [Agent Mottley], Day 7, 27-28 [Counsel Greenwood, 27 October], Day 8, 26 [Counsel Crawford, 28 October 2005], 133 [Agent Jeremie];
465. news story 'Should Dominica Stake a Claim to the Aves Island?' of 21 October 2002 at www.thedominican.net/articles/bird-island.htm; news story 'OECS Urges Restraint by Venezuela over Bird Rocks' of 2 June 2004 at www.stabroeknews.com/index.pl/article_general_news?id=8656647;
466. news story 'OECS and CARICOM Team Up on Aves Rock Issue' of 10-12 November 2005 at www.vheadline.com/readnews.asp?id=46812 & www.vheadline.com/readnews.asp?id=46851; Isla Aves at www.wikinfo.org/wiki.php? title=Isla_Aves & http://da-academy.org/birdisl.html.
467. The author is indebted to Professor Shabtai Rosenne for raising this issue during our personal discussions in 2006. See Virginia Commentary Vol. V (1989), supra note 34, at 437 [Annex VII, Article 13]; and supra notes 112-114. On the problem caused to Trinidad and Tobago by Venezuela's non-party status,
468. see Barbados's Reply, para. 31, supra note 100. See also, e.g., perceptive comments on jurisdiction of the ITLOS and Annex VII Tribunals over "entities other than States Parties" by B.H. Oxman, "Does the ITLOS Have Jurisdiction over Disputes with Taiwan?" (2005) 2 Taiwan International Law Quarterly 205-26; M. Sheng-Ti Gau, "The Practice of the Concept of Fishing Entities: Dispute Settlement Mechanisms," (2006) 37 ODIL 221-243.
469. On the 2006 Barbados/Trinidad and Tobago Award's delivery on the eve of the 60th ICJ Anniversary and on the Award's being - ex aequo with the 2001 Qatar v. Bahrain (Merits) Judgment - the best of all judicial and arbitral decisions concerning maritime boundary delimitation,
470. see main text accompanying supra notes 10-12 and 18-19.
471. On the "judicial habit" concept expounded by President Schwebel in 1999 and promoted by the ICJ and other courts since, see supra notes 1-7, 40.
472. On the 2006 Barbados/Trinidad and Tobago Award's holdings concerning delimitation of the outer continental shelf beyond 200 nautical miles and the CLCS functions,
473. see supra notes 52-59, 97; and on direct impact in terms of the newly undertaken Barbados/France delimitation negotiations,
474. see supra note 117.
475. On the Gulf of Paria Treaty, see supra note 67 and on the Truman Proclamations,
476. see supra note 105.