Olorundami, Fayokemi (2017) Onjectivity versus subjectivity in the context of the ICJ'S three-stage methodology of maritime boundary delimitation. The International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law, 32 (1):2. pp. 36-53. ISSN 0927-3522 (Print), 1571-8085 (Online) (doi:https://doi.org/10.1163/15718085-12341430)

Preview

PDF (Author Accepted Manuscript) 16457 OLORUNDAMI_Objectivity_Versus_Subjectivity_2017.pdf - Accepted Version Download (443kB) | Preview

Abstract

With the International Court of Justice (ICJ) moving away from the application of equitable principles in favour of its three-stage delimitation methodology, maritime boundary delimitations are now described as objective and predictable. This article assesses the accuracy of this description by examining the decisions of the Court and Tribunals in some recent delimitation cases. It is argued that the delimitation of maritime boundaries cannot still be regarded as objective and predictable as exemplified in the decisions discussed. Each of the three stages in the three-stage methodology, namely the drawing of a provisional equidistance line, the adjustment or shifting of that line based on the presence of relevant circumstances and the (dis)proportionality test will be analysed in order to support this position. This article identifies a fixation with following the three-stage methodology (even when inappropriate) as, ironically, the driver for subjectivity and unpredictability in maritime boundary delimitation decisions.

Item Type:	Article
Uncontrolled Keywords:	Equidistance; Predictability; Three-stage methodology; Equitable principles; Subjectivity; Objectivity; Maritime delimitation
Subjects:	K Law > K Law (General)
Faculty / School / Research Centre / Research Group:	Faculty of Liberal Arts & Sciences Faculty of Liberal Arts & Sciences > School of Law & Criminology (LAC)
Last Modified:	02 Mar 2019 01:38
URI:	http://gala.gre.ac.uk/id/eprint/16457

Actions (login required)

View Item

Downloads