The Law of Sea hab khilaafka dejinta waa meel waa tacliimeed weyn, dhaqaale, oo dan siyaasadeed halkaas oo xiriirka ka dhexeeya sharciga dadweynaha iyo kuwa gaarka ah waa in horumar buuxa oo joogto ah wuxuu muujinayaa caqabadaha cusub.
Ujeedada cashar la joogo iyo falanqaynta waa in la abuuro madal muujineysa on dhawaanahan on interface sharciga caalamiga ah ee dadweynaha iyo kuwa gaarka. Taariikh, sharciga badda waxaa loo kala dhexeeya domains dadweynaha iyo kuwa gaarka. We speak of it mostly in the context of interstate relations and private issues are often relegated to admiralty or maritime law (addressing liens, dhaawac badmaaxintii, etc). Si kastaba ha ahaatee, sharciga badda u safri ee domains dadweynaha iyo kuwa gaarka ah iyo sharciga caalamiga ah dadweynaha si tartiib tartiib ah fiusaska nidaamka sharciga ah ee qaran siyaabo kaas oo saamayn shaqsiyaadka on arrimo dhowr ah oo ku saabsan, tusaale ahaan, ammaanka, navigation, ilaalinta deegaanka, ilaalinta iyo ka faa'iidaysiga khayraadka, cilmi sayniska, awood madaniga iyo dambiilaha. Sidoo kale, oil companies are very concerned with delimitations of maritime zones and fishing fleets are concerned with rights and obligations in the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ). Private activity is often the catalyst for conflicts between States as to rights and obligations on the sea. These conflicts demand methods for dispute settlements and many were borrowed from national legal systems.
In gadaal laga soo galo ee dhaqan galay 1994 oo ka mid ah 1982 Law of the Sea Convention (LOSC), dispute settlement methods flourished and the tide is still rising twenty years later. States mostly remain the featured players in these forms of dispute settlement methods but there are some avenues for private actors to engage in as their interests almost always lie behind the interests of State actors.
The hab soo socda ee dejinta muranka sharciga ah ee berkedda weyn ka hooseeyey ayaa la Shafay tan 1994 and key developments and cases will be highlighted:
- Xalinta Khilaafaadka
- Dejinta Garsoorka
- Commission on Continental Mudada
Overview of the Law of the Sea Convention (LOSC)
The Law of Sea Convention wuxuu doonayaa si buuxda nidaaminaya dhammaan dhinacyada kala duwan ee sharciga badaha, xeerarka set on formation of iyoheer iyo biyaha caalamiga ah, and on the several maritime zones (Territorial Sea, Jiidda ah, Exclusive Economic Zone ah, Continental shelf iyo Extended Continental Mudada, the High Seas and the Deep Seabed Area).
It is possible for islands to generate some or all of the maritime zones. Qodobka 121 of the Law of the Sea Convention provides that an “island” is a form of land above the water at high tide which can generate all of the maritime zones if it can sustain human habitation and economic life. Si kastaba ha ahaatee, jasiirad ah oo aan daryeeli karin rug aadanaha iyo nolosha dhaqaale ee u gaarka ah waa a "dhagax weyn" oo kaliya abuuraa Badaha Territorial.
The Law of Sea Heshiiska ayaa sidoo kale bixisaa xeerarka ku saabsan cidhiidhi inay, archipelagos, iyo badaha ku lifaaqan, dalalka dariska, xeerar ku saabsan awood weelasha badda.
Part 11 of the Convention attracted much attention during the negotiations as it provides rules pertaining to the exploitation of the Deep Seabed Area and institutional structures (including a Counsel and an Assembly).
Part 12 of the Convention sets forth rules for environmental protection of maritime areas. Some of these rules are regarded as a sophisticated environmental law treaty embedded within the Law of the Sea Convention.
Tan iyo markii ay 1994, we have acquired a very detailed set of rules relating to the conduct of State and non State actors in relation to the seas. These rules offer a template to evaluate whether a conduct is permissible or not.
Qaar ka mid ah xeerarka aan ahayn mid aad u cad, such as the rules on delimitation of the zones between States. When we refer to the appropriate rules in case of a dispute on the zones, Heshiiska bixisaa in geeddi-socodka si delaminate Zone Dhaqaalaha, Exclusive Economic Zone, Continental Mudada "saameyn doonaa heshiis ku salaysan sharciga caalamiga ah si loo gaaro xal loo siman yahay", taasoo ah hab cadaalad xukunnada of isagoo sheegay in dowladaha waa wada heli si ay u gaaraan heshiisyo iyo hanuuntaan by fikrado siman, but does not provide how the delimitation process should go forward. If States cannot reach an agreement without a reasonable amount of time, waxay ka dibna la filayaa lahaa inuu door biday in ay ku murmi habka dejinta hoos u Law of Sea Convention ka bixiyo Part 15 Heshiiska.
Part 15 Heshiiska uu abuurayaa hab aad u cusub oo loogu talagalay dejinta khilaafaadka. Section 1 waxaa ka mid ah nidaamka muran aan khasab iyo baaqaysaa Maraykanka inay ku baaqaan in wada xaajoodka, dhexdhexaadinta, heshiisiin. If these avenues do not solve the dispute, Section 2 sets forth the compulsory dispute procedures which include the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS) under Annex VI, the International Court of Justice (ICJ), abuurista Tribunal Garqaad ah hoos Annex VII, iyo abuurka ah Garqaad Tribunal Gaarka ah sameeyay sida guddi khubaro ah, Muhiim ma aha qareennada, to deal with a dispute arising out of a particular area (e.g. Kalluumaysiga, deegaanka badda, cilmi sayniska, navigation, etc.).
The innovative aspect of dispute resolution under the Law of the Sea Convention is that it does not impose a single method to settle disputes on a compulsory basis but allows for a lot of flexibility. How does one know which avenue to take? When joining the Convention, new members select one of the four mechanisms set out above. When a dispute arises and that both parties have selected the same mechanism upon joining, they are obligated to use it. When a member has failed to make a selection, it is deemed to have selected an Arbitral Tribunal under Annex VII by default. When both parties have selected different options upon joining, they are both deemed to have selected an Arbitral Tribunal under Annex VII. In shirt, heshiisiin waa habka caadiga ah.
Inta lagu jiro wada xaajoodka taasoo keentay in nuqulkii hore ee Heshiiska, it was considered important to establish certain automatic and optional carve outs to the compulsory dispute settlement methods. These are provided for in Section 3 Qeybta 15 oo ka mid ah, inter alia, marka laga reebo ah si toos ah ugu khasab khilaaf dejinta oo mid ka hortagtaa in aad ka doodid go'aan ka soo baxay qabsado la ogolyahay hor ICJ ku, ITLOS or an Arbitral Tribunal. There are also optional carve outs which can be invoked by a State upon joining the Convention (e.g. xubin ka mid dooran laga yaabaa in aan la aqbali xalinta khilaafaadka khasabka ah marka la eego muran on delimitations, muran la xiriira talgaley taariikhi ah, or disputes concerning military activities). Tusaale ahaan, marka Shiinaha ee Law of Sea Convention ee ansixisay, waxaa gawraco oo dhan saddex saaris optional ka dibna sheegay in jirin salaysan in ka dib markii Shiinaha u tagaan dalab kasta oo la xiriira arrimahan.
Xitaa markii Maraykanka ay doortaan qaar ka saarid Si Qoranaysaan optional korkiisa ku biiro Heshiiska, waxay habase yeeshee waxaa waajib inay ku baaqaan in hababka xallinta khilaafka aan khasab sida wadaxaajoodka, mediation and conciliation. These do not however lead to legally binding decisions.
Waxaa hadda jira 167 xubnaha Maraykanka u Law of Sea Convention iyo 147 Maraykanka dhinacyada ku 1994 Agreement relating to the Deep Seabed (“Heshiiska la xiriira hirgelinta Part XI ee Heshiiska United Nations on Law of Sea ee 10 December 1982"). Tan iyo markii ay 1994, dadaal badan oo la sameeyay si loo caddeeyo sharciga badda, some agreements are global (e.g. dealing with fish crossing zones) or regional (e.g. fish resources in a specific area), qaar ka mid ah ay yihiin laba-geesoodka ah, dadka kale la RVs markab ka qaban, artifacts dhaqanka, iwm. All these agreements constitute a rather complicated web of regulations which are always to be considered against the backdrop of well established rules of customary international law.
Marka Law of Sea Convention la xaajooday ee 1970 iyo 1980, there was a lot of interest about the exploitation of the resources relating to the Deep Seabed which then decreased as other avenues were considered to replace some minerals to be exploited from the Deed Seabed (e.g. qalab dardaro, new sources for minerals on land in particular in the developing countries). Si kastaba ha ahaatee, ka badan la soo dhaafay 10 sano, waxa ay u muuqataa in danta in dhibkani talona camalka ah ayaa mar kale ku koray sida lagu muujiyey by kororka badan oo codsiyada by Authority dhibkani talona Caalamiga ah ka helay shirkadaha raba in ay sameeyaan shidaalka dhibkani talona iyo horumarka of technology waxay jidaynayey.
Foomamka of Law of Sea Dejinta Khilaafaadka
Xeerarka oo faahfaahsan hoos sharciga casriga ah ee badda, the increasing interest in exploiting resources and the threat of compulsory dispute settlement mechanisms encourage States to enter into negotiations. Identifying the fact that negotiations are going forward is difficult as States often keep them quiet. Studies have however reported 16 wadahadalo ka 1994 in 2012, qaar ka mid ah iyaga ka mid ah waxay ahaayeen kuwo guul, sida 2003 Gorgortanka dhexeeya Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan iyo Ruushka, ka 2004 Gorgortanka u dhexeeya Australia iyo New Zealand, ka 2008 Mauritius-Seychelles EEZ xadaynta Treaty, iwm.
Wadahadalada mararka qaarkood waxay gaaraan xalinta khilaafka qaab heshiis ama noocyada kale ee farsamooyinka xalinta khilaafaadka. Gorgortanku waa by ilaa hadda habka of dejinta muranka ka jeeclaadeen by Maraykanka iyo ilaha kale waxaa loo arkaa kaliya marka gorgortanku hakad.
In macnaha guud ee xadaynta xuduudda, there are some real disadvantages in pursuing compulsory dispute mechanisms and considerable advantages in negotiating. During negotiations, dhinacyada hayn gacanta taxane ah oo arrimaha aad u muhiim ah oo ay ku jiraan natiijada saxda ah ee xuduudaha, xuduuddiisa, jidka line loo qeexay, the terms and the timing of the agreement and the way the agreement is presented publically. It is generally believed that litigation always carries risks for the parties and that the range of legal findings available to the tribunal is more restricted than the range of options open to the negotiators. Sidoo kale, marka muuqashada hor tribunal a codsanaya sharciga caalamiga ah, dhinacyada ku shaqeeyaan gudahood jir ah oo gaar ah oo ka maqan dabacsanaan iyo baxo qolka yar hal-abuurka iyo hidde u naxa mar walba hal dhinac, halka ay ku guul darreysatay in la tixgeliyo danaha jilayaasha dhan. Si kastaba ha ahaatee, inta lagu jiro wada xaajoodka, dhinacyada ku eryan geedi socodka ka mid ah horumarinta wadajirka ah ee bannaan ee badda iyo waxay awoodaan in ay meel iska dhigeen khilaafka sharci in ay diiradda saaraan tallaabooyin wax ku ool ah si loo sugo Ujeedada salka dhinac kasta ee, gaar ahaan marka dhinac kasta uu rabo inay ku baaqaan in noocyada kala duwan ee dhiig-miirashada.
By la barbardhigo, States rarely resort to mediation or good offices. Tusaale ahaan, ka 2015 OAS Dhexdhexaadinta of Belize-Guatemala Khilaafaadka Border ayaa aan la xalin khilaafka iyo waxa ay keentay dhinacyada in ay qaadato arrinta ka hor Maxkamadda Caalamiga ah ee Caddaaladda.
Conciliation waxaa la siiyaa in Part 15 of the Law of the Sea Convention but is almost never used by States. The 1981 Iceland / Norway Continental Mudada Khilaafaadka saabsan Jay Mayen Island waa mid ka mid ah conciliations yar ee abid la diiwaangeliyo.
Mareykanka ma aha dhiiran tahay in ay isticmaalaan heshiisiin sababtoo ah marka ay go'aansato in la siiyo ilaa gacanta khilaafka iyo oggolaadaan in go'aan rasmi ah by jirka ah xisbiga saddexaad, States prefer to go all the way to an ultimately binding decision. There is not much to gain from a process which looks a lot like arbitration without the benefit of legal certainty flowing from the issuance of an arbitral award. Sidoo kale, Maraykanka ayaa sidoo kale jeclaan lahaa in ay lumiyaan heshiisiin ah oo ay leeyihiin sababo inuu gees uga dhigay abaalmarinta halkii lumin heshiisiin ah oo aan lahayn wax sal sharci u dhigay natiijada uga leexan.
Mararka qaarkood, the parties will reach an impasse during the negotiations but nevertheless need to resolve the dispute as they might not otherwise be able to exploit resources. They will then turn to compulsory dispute resolution. Some countries, sida Nicaragua, waa mid aad u yaqaanaan habka oo u muuqday dhowr jeer ka hor inta ICJ ku saabsan dhowr jeer. The more familiar States become with the process, the more likely they are to prefer compulsory Law of the Sea dispute resolution in the future.
Tan iyo markii ay 1994, heshiisiin uu noqday habka ugu caansan si ay u xaliyaan khilaafaadka badda. Under Annex VII of The Law of Sea Convention The, Maxkamadaha waxay ka kooban yihiin 5 garqaadeyaasha, dhinac walba ay khilaafka u magacaabay qaybiye oo ay si wadajir ah u magacaabi saddexda haray. In the event that it is needed, the President of ITLOS serves as the appointing authority. The arbitral tribunal decides on its own procedures which provides for a lot of flexibility.
Some examples of the LOSC Annex VII Arbitrations include:
- Australia iyo New Zealand v. Japan (“southern Bluefin Tuna Arbitration”)
- Ireland v. UK (“Mox Plant Arbitration”)
- Malaysia v. Singapore (“Land Reclamation Arbitration”)
- Barbados v. Trinidad and Tobago Maritime xadaynta Xalinta Khilaafaadka
- Guyana v. Suriname Maritime xadaynta Xalinta Khilaafaadka
- Bangladesh v. India (“Bay of Bengal Maritime Boundary Arbitration”)
- Mauritius v. UK (“Chagos Archipelago Arbitration”)
- v Argentine. Ghana (“ARA Libertad Arbitration”)
- Filibiin v. China (“South china / West Philippines Sea Arbitration”)
- Malta v. Sao Tome and Principe (“Duzgit Integrity Arbitration”)
- Netherlands v. Russian Federation (“Arctic sunrise Arbitration”)
- Denmark in la ixtiraamo oo ka mid ah v Faroe Islands. European Union (“Atlanto-Scandian Herring Arbitration”)
The Law of Sea Convention ma sameeyo, keligeed, seek to address issues of sovereignty over territory. It is therefore important to keep in mind, falanqaynta reer Annex VII gar-, in dhibaatooyin sida sharcigu u kac markasta oo Maxkamadaha ah waxaa laga codsanayaa inay xukumaan wixii State xukunka dhul gaar ah.
Tusaale ahaan, ee Xalinta Khilaafaadka Chagos Jasiiradaha, Mauritius ayaa sheegay in maamulka UK ee Jasiiradaha ahaa sharci darro ah iyo in dhulka Mauritius waa in ka mid ah Jasiiradaha ugu Chagos. Marka Mauritius keenay dacwadu in 2010, it tried to frame it in a way that only indirectly touched sovereignty issues. Si kastaba ha ahaatee, ee March 2015, tribunal ka heleen in ay u baahnaydeen awood sida khilaafka si toos ah ka walaacsan xukunka, taas oo aan ka leexinayn ee ay awood. tribunal ayaa hase ahaatee sheegay in qaar ka mid ah arrimaha yar Qaranimada, amarro u sheegashada lammaan, waxaa lagu xukumi yaabaa inuu.
In v Filibiin. Shiinaha heshiisiin, the Philippines are challenging China’s activity in the South China Sea and Seabed Area and argues that China’s claims over the area delimited by the “Nine-Dash Line” are not lawful under the Law of the Sea Convention. The Philippines are therefore seeking a finding that China’s claims over this area is unlawful. The Philippines are also asking the tribunal to determine whether some features claimed by both the Philippines and China qualify as islands, and a finding regarding the Philippines’ rights beyond its exclusive economic zone. China rejects the tribunal’s jurisdiction inter alia on the ground that the essence of the subject matter of the dispute is sovereignty. A hearing on jurisdiction was scheduled for July 2015 iyo, haddii awood la helay, dhageysiga maxkamadeed ku mudnaanta ay dhici doontaa ka dib in 2015.
States are using arbitration more and more because tribunals are quick are issuing decisions and give the parties a lot of control over the procedure. A downside of arbitration is the fact that it is more expensive than court proceedings.
Mid ka mid ah feature weyn oo ka mid ah Law of Sea Convention waa abuurista hay'ad cusub, the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS) in Hamburg, oo waxaa laga yaabaa in dacwadaha muran iyo dood aan labadaba waxaa soddog u ahaa xalinta khilaafka badda.
21 garsoorayaasha doortay 9 sano by dhinacyada State wuxuu u adeegi on ITLOS. Xisbiga State kasta magacaabi kartaa ilaa laba musharax. There is a process to ensure equitable distribution among the judges and the term of one third of them expires every three years. ITLOS operates somewhat in similar way to the ICJ in terms of having some permanence to the institution and a rotation system.
ITLOS has the particularity of being able to hear “prompt release” cases taking place on an expedited basis when a coastal State has seized a foreign vessel and its crew (usually in its Exclusive Economic Zone) and brought it into its ports.
Standing is not limited to State actors and natural or juridical persons may appear before ITLOS (although they have to obtain permission of their flag State).
Inkasta oo la heli karo of this maxkamadda aad u adag in Hamburg awood u dhegaystaan dacwadaha lagu muran muran iyo non, litigation before ITLOS has been very modest. The 22 cases registered are almost all related to “prompt release” matters and ITLOS very rarely decides cases on the merits. Although States mostly prefer going before the ICJ, more and more cases are registered before ITLOS (such as ITLOS Case No. 16 "Khilaafaadka oo ku saabsan xadaynta ee xuduudda badda ee u dhexeeya Bangladesh iyo Myanmar ee Bay ee Bengal "iyo ITLOS Case No. 23 "Khilaafaadka ku saabsan xadaynta ee Boundary Maritime u dhexeeya Ghana iyo Ivory Coast ee Badweynta Atlantic ah ").
waxaa sugan in, the number one forum for States seeking judicial settlement concerning the Law of the Sea is the International Court of Justice (ICJ) which is not limited to law of the sea issues and may then decide maritime and sovereignty issues.
Qaar ka mid ah Qiyaame ICJ on sharciga badda tan 1994 include:
- 1998 Awooda Kalluumaysiga (Spain v. Canada) 2001 Maritime xadaynta iyo Su'aalaha Territorial (Qatar v. Bahrain)
- 2002 Land iyo Maritime Boundary (Cameroon v. Nigeria: Equatorial Guinea intervening)
- 2007 Khilaafaadka Territorial iyo Maritime Badda Caribbean (Nicaragua v. Honduras)
- 2012 Khilaafaadka Territorial iyo Maritime (Nicaragua v. Colombia)
- 2009 Maritime xadaynta ee Badda Madow (Romania v. Ukraine)
- 2014 Khilaafaadka Maritime (Peru v. Chile)
- 2014 Whaling in Antarctic ah (Australia v. Japan: New Zealand intervening)
The ICJ jurisprudence is fairly robust and contributes greatly to our understanding of how Law of the Sea disputes should be decided. Tusaale ahaan, sanado badan, habka loo isticmaalo la xadeeyo ahayd arrin aan la hubin, laakiin in ka sano ee lasoo dhaafay fiqiga ah, gaar ahaan marka la eego muranka Badda Madow, has established a three-part approach to delimitation (first, the tribunal draws a provisional equidistant line from base points on the coasts of both States parties to the delimitation dispute; second, the tribunal considers factors calling for adjustments such as a small bump on the coast of one State which drastically impacts the provisional equidistant line; third, maxkamadda ayaaba falanqaynta dheellitirnaanta ah ku dheehan yahay waxa ay u muuqataa at labada qaybood oo biyo ah, xuduuddiisa, looks at the ratio and at the coastlines and decides whether there is a significant disproportion in the maritime spaces awarded to each State). Waxaa jira waxyaabo badan oo ah dabacsanaan in hab tribunal iyo fiqiga casriga ah ayaa muujinaya in macnaha guud, gaar ahaan in joogitaanka jasiiradaha ama qaababka kale ee, matter a lot. Depending on their size, jasiiradaha mararka qaarkood muhiim doonaa heshiis weyn oo noqon doona determinative halka line kumeelgaarka meelsha ugu soo jiidaa, ama mararka qaarkood la doono gees u riixay by maxkamadda oo aan loo isticmaali doonaa in go'aan kiiska.
Geographic considerations are the dominant force driving these cases. Issues about which State entity should be entitled to which area, ganacsiga iyo dhaqaalaha dalka oo actor fiican yahay bii'ada dhawaaqa aan la tixgeliyo.
- Opinions Advisory
The ICJ or ITLOS may render Advisory Opinions. ITLOS recently issued its first Advisory Opinion for the West African Sub-Regional Fisheries Commission. Guddiga ayaa la weydiiyay ITLOS afar su'aalood oo la xidhiidha, inter alia, to the rights and obligations of flag and coastal States regarding fishing in the Exclusive Economic Zone. The backdrop to the request was allegations by African States that third States were not properly regulating their vessels. Twenty-two States parties to the Convention filed written statements before ITLOS. waxaa sugan in, Opinions Advisory dheeraad ah waxaa laga codsan doonaa in mustaqbalka si aad u hesho talo ee dheeraad ah sida in ay xuquuqda iyo waajibaadka Mareykanka sida waafaqsan sharciga caalamiga ah.
Waxa kale oo jira waa wax macquul ah in la helo Opinion ah Advisory ka Khilaafaadka dhibkani talona Chamber, a sub unit of ITLOS which can both hear disputes between State and non State actors and issue Advisory Opinions. In 2011, waxaa buriyay ay Opinion ugu horeysay Advisory on dhibkani talona Macdanta.
- Continental Mudada Commission
Under jireen ah, shiidaa State kasta helo Continental shelf ah ilaa 200 nautical miles but States sometimes argue that their Continental Shelf continues past this line. Extending a State’s Continental Shelf allows it to exploit resources further but also takes away other States’ ability to exploit resources in the area.
The Law of the Sea Convention created a Commission to hear the numerous Extended Continental Shelf Claims and their underlying scientific arguments. The Commission consists of 21 xubnaha, khabiiro ku takhasusay ee cilmi dhul iyo physics, yaa xukumi doonaa on sheegashada iyo saari jeedinta ah in meesha xadka ee Mudada Continental waa in la jiido oo, haddii raacay, waxaa loo arkaa a xadaynta ku qabanaya aaddan-a-xilkeedii dhammaan dhinacyada in ay jireen ah.
Iyo toddoba iyo toddobaatan Mareykanka ayaa gudbiyay gudbiyo ka hor inta Guddiga si ay u helaan Talooyin sida iyo laba iyo labaatan Talooyin ayaa la soo saaray illaa iyo hadda.
Gunaanad saabsan Law of Sea Dejinta Khilaafaadka
Hubaal Waxaa jira hir cadu ku yaal dejinta muranka sharciga badda kexeeyey by qadarka xeerarka faahfaahsan oo hadda la heli karo under, danta sii kordhaya ee khayraadka badda iyo khayraadka loo xafidi kuwan, iyo rajada ee qasabka ah dejinta muranka laalaadeen ka badan jilayaasha State.
New forms of dispute are now starting to emerge. Global climate change is generating a significant amount of disputes as seas are rising from the melting of glaciers, arctic ice and the expansion of water generally. Baselines are therefore changing. Some nations, jasiiradda Maraykanka, Waxaa laga yaabaa in maalin maalmaha ka mid xitaa baaba'aan.
Source: Lalive Lecture, 15 July 2015, Geneva, A Rising Tide: Dispute Settlement under the Law of the Sea, by Professor Sean Murphy
Speakers: Marcelo Kohen, Michael Schneider, Sean Murphy
- Summary by Olivier Marquais, Aceris Law LLC