国际法院对索马里大陆架扩展划界案诉肯尼亚案的批评

IF 1.3 4区 社会学 Q2 INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS Chinese Journal of International Law Pub Date : 2023-02-03 DOI:10.1093/chinesejil/jmad001
Jianjun Gao
{"title":"国际法院对索马里大陆架扩展划界案诉肯尼亚案的批评","authors":"Jianjun Gao","doi":"10.1093/chinesejil/jmad001","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n Somalia v. Kenya is the first case where the ICJ delimited the boundary line of the continental shelf beyond 200 nautical miles (the so-called “extended continental shelf”) between the Parties. Compared with the previous cases decided by other international tribunals on the same issue, the present case shows some differences. Particularly, the ICJ did not mention the three-stage methodology or other delimitation methods in the delimitation of the extended continental shelf, nor did it identify the relevant area or apply the disproportionality test. The ICJ in this case did not have any reliable evidence to ascertain the Parties’ entitlements to the extended continental shelf, and it did not make a clear determination on the issue of entitlements accordingly. The ICJ delimited the extended continental shelf by extending the boundary line within 200 nautical miles in the same direction, but its reasoning is not sufficient to support the decision. Besides, the Court did not pronounce that the delimitation line achieves an equitable solution. Indeed, in light of the relationship between entitlement and delimitation as well as the circumstances of the present case, the ICJ should have declined to delimit the extended continental shelf.","PeriodicalId":45438,"journal":{"name":"Chinese Journal of International Law","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2023-02-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Delimitation of the Extended Continental Shelf in Somalia v. Kenya in the ICJ: A Critique\",\"authors\":\"Jianjun Gao\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/chinesejil/jmad001\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\n Somalia v. Kenya is the first case where the ICJ delimited the boundary line of the continental shelf beyond 200 nautical miles (the so-called “extended continental shelf”) between the Parties. Compared with the previous cases decided by other international tribunals on the same issue, the present case shows some differences. Particularly, the ICJ did not mention the three-stage methodology or other delimitation methods in the delimitation of the extended continental shelf, nor did it identify the relevant area or apply the disproportionality test. The ICJ in this case did not have any reliable evidence to ascertain the Parties’ entitlements to the extended continental shelf, and it did not make a clear determination on the issue of entitlements accordingly. The ICJ delimited the extended continental shelf by extending the boundary line within 200 nautical miles in the same direction, but its reasoning is not sufficient to support the decision. Besides, the Court did not pronounce that the delimitation line achieves an equitable solution. Indeed, in light of the relationship between entitlement and delimitation as well as the circumstances of the present case, the ICJ should have declined to delimit the extended continental shelf.\",\"PeriodicalId\":45438,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Chinese Journal of International Law\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-02-03\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Chinese Journal of International Law\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/chinesejil/jmad001\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Chinese Journal of International Law","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/chinesejil/jmad001","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

索马里诉肯尼亚案是国际法院在缔约方之间划定200海里以外大陆架(所谓的“扩展大陆架”)边界线的第一个案件。与以往其他国际法庭就同一问题作出的裁决相比,本案显示出一些差异。特别是,国际法院没有提及扩展大陆架划界中的三阶段方法或其他划界方法,也没有确定相关区域或应用不相称性检验。在本案中,国际法院没有任何可靠证据来确定缔约方对扩展大陆架的应享权利,也没有相应地就应享权利问题作出明确决定。国际法院通过将边界线向同一方向延伸200海里,划定了延伸的大陆架,但其推理不足以支持这一决定。此外,法院没有宣布划界线实现了公平解决。事实上,鉴于权利和划界之间的关系以及本案的情况,国际法院本应拒绝对扩展大陆架进行划界。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Delimitation of the Extended Continental Shelf in Somalia v. Kenya in the ICJ: A Critique
Somalia v. Kenya is the first case where the ICJ delimited the boundary line of the continental shelf beyond 200 nautical miles (the so-called “extended continental shelf”) between the Parties. Compared with the previous cases decided by other international tribunals on the same issue, the present case shows some differences. Particularly, the ICJ did not mention the three-stage methodology or other delimitation methods in the delimitation of the extended continental shelf, nor did it identify the relevant area or apply the disproportionality test. The ICJ in this case did not have any reliable evidence to ascertain the Parties’ entitlements to the extended continental shelf, and it did not make a clear determination on the issue of entitlements accordingly. The ICJ delimited the extended continental shelf by extending the boundary line within 200 nautical miles in the same direction, but its reasoning is not sufficient to support the decision. Besides, the Court did not pronounce that the delimitation line achieves an equitable solution. Indeed, in light of the relationship between entitlement and delimitation as well as the circumstances of the present case, the ICJ should have declined to delimit the extended continental shelf.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.00
自引率
20.00%
发文量
25
期刊介绍: The Chinese Journal of International Law is the leading forum for articles on international law by Chinese scholars and on international law issues relating to China. An independent, peer-reviewed research journal edited primarily by scholars from mainland China, and published in association with the Chinese Society of International Law, Beijing, and Wuhan University Institute of International Law, Wuhan, the Journal is a general international law journal with a focus on materials and viewpoints from and/or about China, other parts of Asia, and the broader developing world.
期刊最新文献
Navigating New Waters: IMO’s Efforts to Regulate Autonomous Shipping Jurisdiction of a State Party under Article 2(1) of the ICCPR: A Comment on A.S. and Others v. Italy The 2022 ICJ Judgment in Nicaragua v. Colombia: Towards a Theory of Exclusivity in Allocating Rights and Jurisdiction between the Coastal and Other States? Interplay of International Law and Cyberspace: State Sovereignty Violation, Extraterritorial Effects, and the Paradigm of Cyber Sovereignty Military Alliances under International Law
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1