STRAITS, ARCHIPELAGOS AND

DELIMITATION OF MARITIME
BOUNDARIES
RAFAEL ALEJANDRO LAGMAY

DRAGON
!!!

CORFU CHANNEL CASE

CORFU CHANNEL CASE

HM Orion: 1st Incident

CORFU CHANNEL CASE

HM Mauritius: 2nd Incident

CORFU CHANNEL CASE

Saumarez towed by Volage

CORFU CHANNEL CASE

Mine in Corfu Channel

United Kingdom Position:

Innocent passage through straits is a right u
international law

CORFU CASE: STRAITS

Albania Position:
While Corfu Channel is a strait geographicall
not an international highway where right of p
exists because:
1)Not a necessary route between two high se
2)Hardly used in international navigation; us
exclusively for local traffic
CORFU CASE: STRAITS

Albania Position:

Foreign warships have no right to pass through Alban

waters without prior authorization from Albania
1)Having been at war with Greece at the time, it had
restrict the passage of warships
2) The Royal Navy Ships sailed in combat formation,
guns and ships used betrayed an absence of innocen
an intention to intimidate Albania
CORFU CASE: STRAITS

Corfu Channel is a strait where right of passage exist

Test in Determining WON body of water is a strait as

1) Geographical situation as connecting two parts of
2) Fact of its being used for international navigation

Warships have a right to transit passage in times of p

CORFU CASE: STRAITS

CORFU CHANNEL CASE

COQUIA: ANALYSIS OF THE

ARCHIPELAGO DOCTRINE

3rd UN Conference on the Law of the Sea, after 8 years of work

substantive sessions, finally approved the Convention of the La
on 30 April 1982
1st and 2nd conference archipelagic doctrine was not given
importance sufficient for discussion

COQUIA

Why important to Philippines:

archipelagic doctrine was approve

COQUIA

h 1955 (PHL Position Paper): all waters around, between and connecting
nt islands belonging to the Philippine archipelago, irrespective of their wi
ension are necessary appurtenances of the land
y forming an integral part of the national or inland waters, subject to the
ve sovereignty of the Philippines

pine position:
ne archipelago consists of a continuous chain of islands or islets in such
aight baselines could be easily drawn between appropriate points on ou
or eyelets in such a way to encircle the whole archipelago without cross
onably large expanses of water without infringing the principles laid dow
ernational Court of Justice in the Anglo-Norwegian case
COQUIA

March 1973 the archipelagic states, namely: Fiji, Indones

uritius, and the Philippines, submitted to the
bed Committee the principle on archipelagic doctrine

COQUIA

COQUIA

Principles:
1. An archipelagic state, whose component islands and other
natural features form an intrinsic geographic, economic and
political entity, and historically have or may have been
regarded as such may draw straight baselines connecting the
outermost points of the outermost islands and drying reefs of
the archipelago from which the extent of the territorial sea of
the archipelagic state is or may be determined.
2. The waters within the baselines, regardless of their depth
of distance from the coast, the seabed and the subsoil
thereof, and the superjacent airspace, as well as all their
resources, belong and are subject to the sovereignty of the
archipelagic state.
3. Innocent passage of foreign vessels through the waters of
archipelagic State shall be allowed in accordance with its
national legislation, having regard to the existing rules of
international law. Such passage shall be through sealanes as
may be designated for the purpose by the archipelagic state

GUESS WHO WAS AGAINST THE

ARCHIPELAGIC DOCTRINE:
MARITIME POWERS, LED BY
THE UNITED STATES!!!
ARGUMENT: MOBILITY OF
VESSELS
COQUIA

COQUIA

PART IV ARCHIPELAGIC STATES

Article 49
Legal status of archipelagic waters, of the air space over
archipelagic waters and of their bed and subsoil
1. The sovereignty of an archipelagic State extends to the waters
enclosed by the archipelagic baselines drawn in accordance with
article 47, described as archipelagic waters, regardless of their
depth or distance from the coast.
2. This sovereignty extends to the air space over the archipelagic
waters, as well as to their bed and subsoil, and the resources
contained therein.
3. This sovereignty is exercised subject to this Part.
4. The regime of archipelagic sea lanes passage established in
this Part shall not in other respects affect the status of the
archipelagic waters, including the sea lanes, or the exercise by
the archipelagic State of its sovereignty over such waters and
their air space, bed and subsoil, and the resources contained
therein.

2. The archipelagic State may, without discrimination

in form or in fact among foreign ships, suspend
temporarily in specified areas of its archipelagic
waters the innocent passage of foreign ships if such
suspension is essential for the protection of its
security. Such suspension shall take effect only after
having been duly published.

COQUIA

Article 52
Right of innocent passage

1. Subject to article 53 and without prejudice to article

50, ships of all States enjoy the right of innocent
passage through archipelagic waters, in accordance
with Part II, section 3.

TOO LONG FOR THIS SLIDE.

COQUIA

Article53
Right of archipelagic sea lanes
passage:

- Maritime Powers: Restricted mobility of vessels

- The archipelagic states were not altogether united
during the negotiating stage of the conference
- While the archipelagic doctrine is now recognized by
the international community, the regime of the
archipelagic state over its waters has been curtailed
- Aircraft in transit passage shall observe rules of the
air established by the International Civil Aviation
Organization
- During transit passage, foreign ships, including
marine scientific research and hydrographic survey
ships, may not carry out any research or survey
activities without the prior authorization of the
archipelagic state

COQUIA

Conclusions:

GULF OF MAINE CASE

29 March 1979 Canada and USA signed a special

agreement by which the parties decided to refer to the
Court a long standing dispute between them concerning
the maritime delimitation of the fisheries zones and
continental shelf in the gulf of Maine
25 November 1981 The proceedings were instituted by
filing a Special Agreement at the International Court of
Justice; the Agreement called to Court to decide upon
the conflicting claims in accordance with the principles
and rules of international law applicable in the matter as
between the parties
Parties requested that the ICJ form a 5-member chamber
under Art. 26(2) of the Statute to hear the case
(pursuant to Art. 40)

GULF OF MAINE

Facts:

What is the course of the single maritime

boundary that divides the continental shelf
and fishery zones of Canada and the United
States of America XXX ?

GULF OF MAINE

Issue:

Both: DELIMITATION IN
EQUITABLE PRINCIPLES

ACCORDANCE

Canada:
-Art. 6 Geneva Convention
-Arts. 74 and 83 UNCLOS
USA: Georges Bank claim
-primary coast
- 9 geographical circumstances
- broad claim of predominant interest

WITH

GULF OF MAINE

Arguments:

-No ruling on impossibility of drawing the line

- Geographical Characteristics of the Area
- Rejected Canadas basis of title argument
- Application to the present case of criteria
more especially derived from geography
- 3 Segments
- Defined by geodetic coordinates

GULF OF MAINE

Ruling:

GULF OF MAINE CASE

THANK YOU!
GONG XI FA CAI!