denmark v. norway case concerning maritime delimitation in the area between greenland and jan mayen

Denmark v. NorwayCASE CONCERNING MARITIME

DELIMITATION IN THE AREA BETWEEN GREENLAND AND JAN MAYEN

Jan Mayen

Greenland

Iceland

Jan Mayen

Iceland

Greenland

Claims•Denmark

•To declare Greenland entitled to a full 200-mile fishery zone and continental shelf

•Norway•Median line constitutes the boundary for purposes of delimitation

Note: YELLOW – Danish claimsGREEN – Norwegian claimsRED – Overlap AreaBLUE – for DenmarkWHITE – for Norway

Case forDenmark• Greenland is entitled

to full 200 mile continental shelf and fishery zone

• Norway in 1976 enacted legislation establishing 200 mile economic zone, BUT NOT TO EXTEND BEYOND THE MEDIAN LINE IN RELATION TO GREENLAND

• “potential area of overlap claims”

• “area relevant to the delimitation dispute”

Case forNorway• Delimitation already

exists between Greenland and Jan Mayen– 1965 Bilateral

Agreement– 1958 Geneva

Convention on the Continental Shelf

– Practice of the Parties

Court

• 1965 agreement contains no provision for the delimitation of the position of the median specifically between

Greenland and Jan Mayen• “the boundary” refers to one boundary, that

of the Denmark and Skagerrak• Geneva convention – shelf rights asserted by

both Parties

• 1979 agreement refers only to Norway and Farroe Islands• Pattern of conduct – Danish proclamation of

200 mile fishery zone but delimitation of fishing territory to equidistant with Jan Mayen is IN CONCERN NOT TO AGGRAVATE THE SITUATION PENDING A DEFINITIVE SETTLEMENT OF THE BOUNDARY

• No median line boundary is already in place• Two options for the court:

– Single delimitation for both fishery zone and continental shelf

– Two lines, one for fishery zone and one for continental shelf

Why not two?

• Gulf of Maine case• Involved both continental shelf and fishery zone• Parties there adopted no objection to have

one delimitation despite law governing fishery zone is customary law and continental shelf is the 1982 UNCLOS

• Art. 74 par. 1 and Art. 83 p. 1 of UNCLOS• “by agreement on the basis of international

law, as referred to in Art. 38 of the Statute of the International Court of Justice, in order to achieve an EQUITABLE SOLUTION”

• Court held this to mean that special circumstances require another boundary

• 1977 Court of Arbitration decision (UK v. France) referring to the existence of a rule combing “equidistance-special circumstances”

How to use rule

• Start with median line of delimitation

• Taking into account the circumstances present, shift or adjust the line

Circumstances

• Jan Mayen is small– Disparity in

proportions

• Arithmetical ratio in their coast line

Norway’s view

• Comparison of coastal length will make irrelevant their circumstances

• Proportionality is not an independent principle of delimitation, but a test of equitableness

• Proposed sharing

Court• Citing North Sea Continental Shelf case• “Delimitation is a process which involves boundaries of an area already, in principle, appertaining

to the coastal State and not the determination de novo of such an area. Delimitation in an equitable manner is one thing, but not the same thing as awarding a just and equitable share of a previously undelimited area…”

• Simply means that sharing out is the consequence of delimitation and not vice versa. Tribunal is tasked to do so

Decision

• Balanced circumstances for all Parties

• Take into account coastal length and fishing activities of the Parties

• Neither the median line nor the 200 mile line should be adopted.

• Libya v. Malta Continental Shelf case

• “natural resources … so far as known and readily ascertainable might well constitute relevant circumstances … essential objectives envisaged by the State when they put forward claims”

Denmark: “fish that moved boundary lines to the east – CAPELIN”

Distribution and migration of Icelandic capelin• Green shade: Feeding area

of adultsBlue shade: Distribution of juvenilesGreen arrows: Feeding migrationsBlue arrows: Return migrationsRed shade and Red arrows: Spawning migrations - Main spawning grounds and larval drift routes

• Green shade: Feeding area of adultsBlue shade: Distribution of juvenilesGreen arrows: Feeding migrationsBlue arrows: Return migrationsRed shade and Red arrows: Spawning migrations - Main spawning grounds and larval drift routes

• Median delimitation will result to Greenland having substantially less or no access to good capelin fishing grounds.

Special Circumstances

• Coastal length• Population• Presence of Ice Drift• Socio-Economic-Cultural attachment• Jan Mayen is uninhabitable rock, incapable of

sustaining human settlement

• Notice that as delimitation goes northward, it narrows nearer to median limit

• Why? Ice drift prohibits capelin fishing

Why not full 200 miles?• (reverse edge of argument)

No reason to consider either the limited nature of the population of Jan Mayen or socio-economic and cultural factors as circumstances to be taken account

• Conduct of parties does not constitute an element which could influence the operation of delimitation (with respect to Norway and Iceland)

Security ofNorway• The delimitation that shall result … is

not so near to the coast of either Party as to make questions of security a particular consideration in the present case

Court

• To decide, in accordance with International law and in light of the facts and arguments developed by the Parties,

where the line of delimitation shall be drawn between Denmark and Norway fishery zones and continental shelf areas in the waters between Greenland and Jan Mayen, and to draw them.

END