You are here:       
Kenya Law / Blog / Case Summary: The International Court of Justice decision on maritime delimitation in the Indian Ocean between Somalia and Kenya.

The International Court of Justice decision on maritime delimitation in the Indian Ocean between Somalia and Kenya.

Maritime Delimitation in the Indian Ocean (Somalia v Kenya)

The International Court of Justice

No. 2021/26

P&ICJJ Donoghue; VP &ICJJ Gevorgian; Tomka, Bennouna, Xue, Sebutinde, Robinson, Iwasawa, Nolte, Abraham, Yusuf, Bhandari, Salam ICJJJ; and Guillaume, ad hoc ICJJ

October 12, 2021

International Law - law of the Sea – interpretation of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea – delimitation of maritime boundaries – delimitation of the territorial sea – whether the delimitation of the continental shelf should go beyond 200 nautical miles - whether Kenya violated its international obligations by engaging in maritime activities in the disputed areaUnited Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, 1982, article 76

International Law -law of the Sea – maritime boundary – agreed maritime boundary between the parties – where a party alleged the other party had acquiesced to a boundary that followed the parallel of latitude – court’s interpretation on the word acquiesce – tests applicable in establishing that a party had acquiesced – whether Somalia had acquiesced to a maritime boundary following the parallel of latitude-whether there was an agreed maritime boundary between the parties at the parallel of latitude.

International Law – law of the sea – delimitation of maritime boundaries – delimitation of the exclusive economic zone and the continental shelf within 200 nautical miles – where a provisional equidistance line from the most appropriate base points did not exist – what was the relevant coast of Somalia and Kenya – what was the provisional equidistant line and whether there was a need to adjust it – United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, 1982, article 15

Brief facts

The dispute concerned delimitation of maritime boundaries between Kenya and Somalia in the Indian Ocean. Both countries claimed the disputed area. On August 28, 2014 Somalia instituted proceedings against Kenya requesting the International Court of Justice (ICJ) to determine, on the basis of international law, the complete course of the single maritime boundary dividing all the maritime areas appertaining to Somalia and to Kenya in the Indian Ocean, including the continental shelf beyond 200 [nautical miles].

The court determined it had jurisdiction to hear the matter and noted that the parties had adopted fundamentally different approaches to the delimitation of the maritime areas. Somalia asserted that no maritime boundary existed between the two states and asked the court to plot a boundary line using the equidistance/special circumstances method for the delimitation of the territorial sea, and the equidistance/relevant circumstances method for the maritime areas beyond the territorial sea.

Kenya contended that there was already an agreed maritime boundary between the parties, because Somalia had acquiesced to a boundary that follows the parallel of latitude at 1° 39′ 43.2″ S. Kenya further contended that the parties had considered this to be an equitable delimitation, in light of both the geographical context and regional practice. Kenya submitted that the court should delimit the maritime areas following the parallel of latitude, and that, even if the court were to employ the delimitation methodology suggested by Somalia, the outcome, following adjustment to reach an equitable result, would be a delimitation that followed the parallel of latitude.

Issues

  1. Whether Somalia had acquiesced to a maritime boundary following the parallel of latitude.
  2. Whether there was an agreed maritime boundary between Kenya and Somalia at the parallel of latitude.
  3. What was the relevant coast of Somalia and Kenya?
  4. What was the provisional equidistant line at the coast of Kenya and Somalia?
  5. Whether there was a need to adjust the provisional equidistance line.
  6. Whether the delimitation of the continental shelf at the coast of Kenya and Somalia should go beyond 200 nautical miles.
  7. Whether Kenya violated its international obligations by engaging in maritime activities in the disputed area.

Relevant provisions of the law

United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, 1982

Article 15-Delimitation of the territorial sea between States with opposite or adjacent coasts

Where the coasts of two States are opposite or adjacent to each other, neither of the two States is entitled, failing agreement between them to the contrary, to extend its territorial sea beyond the median line every point of which is equidistant from the nearest points on the baselines from which the breadth of the territorial seas of each of the two States is measured. The above provision does not apply, however, where it is necessary by reason of historic title or other special circumstances to delimit the territorial seas of the two States in a way which is at variance therewith.

Article 76-Definitions of the continental shelf

1.(a) For the purposes of this Convention, the coastal State shall establish the outer edge of the continental margin wherever the margin extends beyond 200 nautical miles from the baselines from which the breadth of the territorial sea is measured, by either:

i)   a line delineated in accordance with paragraph 7 by reference to the outermost fixed points at each of which the thickness of sedimentary rocks is at least 1 per cent of the shortest distance from such point to the foot of the continental slope; or

ii)   a line delineated in accordance with paragraph 7 by reference to fixed points not more than 60 nautical miles from the foot of the continental slope.

a)   In the absence of evidence to the contrary, the foot of the continental slope shall be determined as the point of maximum change in the gradient at its base.

5. The fixed points comprising the line of the outer limits of the continental shelf on the seabed, drawn in accordance with paragraph 4 (a)(i) and (ii), either shall not exceed 350 nautical miles from the baselines from which the breadth of the territorial sea is measured or shall not exceed 100 nautical miles from the 2,500-metre isobath, which is a line connecting the depth of 2,500 metres.

Held by majority

  1. Both parties signed the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), 1982. The delimitation of the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) and the continental shelf was governed by article 74, paragraph 1, and article 83, paragraph 1, of the Convention, respectively. Maritime delimitation between states with opposite or adjacent coasts should be effected by means of an agreement between them, and that, where such an agreement had not been achieved, delimitation should be effected by recourse to a third party possessing the necessary competence.
  2. Maritime delimitation could not be effected unilaterally by either of the states concerned. An agreement establishing a maritime boundary was usually expressed in written form. The court considered, however, that the “agreement” referred to in article 15, Article 74, paragraph 1, and article 83, paragraph 1, of the Convention could take other forms as well. The essential question was whether there was a shared understanding between the States concerned regarding their maritime boundaries.
  3. The jurisprudence relating to acquiescence and tacit agreement could be of assistance when examining whether there existed an agreement that was not in written form regarding the maritime boundary between two States. Acquiescence was equivalent to tacit recognition manifested by unilateral conduct which the other party could interpret as consent. If the circumstances were such that the conduct of the other State called for a response, within a reasonable period, the absence of a reaction could amount to acquiescence. The principle qui tacet consentire videtur si loqui debuisset ac potuisset was instructive.
  4. In determining whether a state’s conduct called for a response from another state, it was important to consider whether the State had consistently maintained that conduct. In evaluating the absence of a reaction, duration could be a significant factor. Both Proclamations claimed a boundary at the parallel of latitude, but Kenya’s legislation referred to a boundary along a median or equidistance line. Between 26 September 2007 and 4 July 2008, Kenya requested Somalia to confirm its agreement to a boundary along the parallel of latitude, but Somalia did not provide such confirmation.
  5. Kenya had not consistently maintained its claim that the parallel of latitude constituted the single maritime boundary with Somalia. There was no compelling evidence that Kenya’s claim and related conduct were consistently maintained and, consequently, called for a response from Somalia.
  6. The starting-point of the single maritime boundary delimiting the respective maritime areas between the Federal Republic of Somalia and the Republic of Kenya was the intersection of the straight line extending from the final permanent boundary beacon (PB 29) at right angles to the general direction of the coast with the low-water line, at the point with co-ordinates 1° 39′ 44.0″ S and 41° 33′ 34.4″ E (WGS 84).
  7. Somalia’s conduct between 1979 and 2014 in relation to its maritime boundary with Kenya, in particular its alleged absence of protest against Kenya’s claim, did not establish Somalia’s clear and consistent acceptance of a maritime boundary at the parallel of latitude. It could not be inferred from the parties’ positions during the Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea that Somalia rejected equidistance as a possible method of achieving an equitable solution.
  8. There was no indication that Somalia accepted the boundary claimed by Kenya during the bilateral negotiations held in 1980 and 1981. The context of the civil war that afflicted Somalia, depriving it of a fully operational government and administration between 1991 and 2005, should be taken into account in evaluating the extent to which it was in a position to react to Kenya’s claim during this period.
  9. Other conduct of the parties between 1979 and 2014 concerning naval patrols, fisheries, marine scientific research and oil concessions, indicated that Somalia did not confirm that it had accepted a boundary at the parallel of latitude. There was no compelling evidence that Somalia had acquiesced to the maritime boundary claimed by Kenya and there was no agreed maritime boundary between the parties at the parallel of latitude.
  10. The starting-point of the maritime boundary was to be determined by connecting the final permanent boundary beacon, known as Primary Beacon No. 29, or “PB 29”, to a point on the low-water line by a straight line that runs in a south-easterly direction and that was perpendicular to the general trend of the coastline at Dar Es Salam, in accordance with the terms of the 1927/1933 treaty arrangement.
  11. In the delimitation of the territorial sea, it would not be appropriate to place base points on the tiny arid Diua Damasciaca islets, which had a disproportionate impact on the course of the median line in comparison to the size of these features. For similar reasons, it would not be appropriate to select a base point on a low-tide elevation off the southern tip of Ras Kaambooni, which was a minor protuberance in Somalia’s otherwise relatively straight coastline in the vicinity of the land boundary terminus, which constituted the starting-point for the maritime delimitation.
  12. The applicable geographic co-ordinates of the base points on the parties’ coasts for the construction of the median line starts from the land boundary terminus and continues out to Point A at a distance of 12 nautical miles from the coast. That median line was depicted on sketch-map No. 5.
  13. In the delimitation of the exclusive economic zone and the continental shelf within 200 nautical miles, a provisional equidistance line from the most appropriate base points on the parties’ coasts should be established as the first stage. The second stage would involve, the court’s consideration whether there were factors that called for the adjustment or shifting of the provisional equidistance line in order to achieve an equitable result. In the third and final stage, the court would subject the envisaged delimitation line, either the equidistance line or the adjusted line, to the disproportionality test.
  14. The three-stage methodology was not prescribed by UNCLOS and therefore not mandatory. It was developed by the court in its jurisprudence on maritime delimitation as part of its effort to arrive at an equitable solution, as required by articles 74 and 83 of the Convention. The methodology was based on objective, geographical criteria, while at the same time taking into account any relevant circumstances bearing on the equitableness of the maritime boundary.
  15. The three-stage methodology brought predictability to the process of maritime delimitation and had been applied in past cases. The three-stage methodology for maritime delimitation had also been used by international tribunals. The court would nonetheless abstain from using the three-stage methodology if there were factors which made the application of the equidistance method inappropriate, for instance if the construction of an equidistance line from the coasts was not feasible which was not the case in the present circumstances.
  16. The relevant coast of Somalia extended for approximately 733 km and that of Kenya for approximately 511 km. The relevant area was comprised that part of the maritime space in which the potential entitlements of the parties overlap. The relevant area could not extend beyond the area in which the entitlements of both parties overlapped. In the present case, the north, the relevant area extended as far as the overlap of the maritime projections of the coast of Kenya and the coast of Somalia. The relevant area, as identified by the court for the purpose of delimiting the exclusive economic zone and the continental shelf up to 200 nautical miles from the coasts, measures approximately 212,844 sq km.
  17. The appropriate base points for the construction of the provisional equidistant line within 200 nautical miles of the coasts would be on the basis of the base points began from the endpoint of the maritime boundary in the territorial sea (Point A) and continued for 200 nautical miles from the starting-point of the maritime boundary, at Point 10′. The line thus obtained was depicted on sketch-map No. 9.
  18. The use of an equidistance line could produce a cut-off effect, particularly where the coastline was characterized by concavity, and that an adjustment of that line could be necessary in order to reach an equitable solution. Nevertheless, any cut-off effect as a result of the Kenya-Tanzania maritime boundary was not a relevant circumstance. The agreements between Kenya and Tanzania were res inter alios acta and could not per se affect the maritime boundary between Kenya and Somalia. The issue to be considered in the present case was whether the use of an equidistance line produced a cut-off effect for Kenya, not as a result of the agreed boundary between Kenya and Tanzania, but as a result of the configuration of the coastline.
  19. The provisional equidistance line between Somalia and Kenya would progressively narrow the coastal projection of Kenya, substantially reducing its maritime entitlements within 200 nautical miles. In order to attenuate the cut-off effect, it would be reasonable to adjust the provisional equidistance line. It would be necessary to shift the line to the north so that, from Point A, it followed a geodetic line with an initial azimuth of 114º. That line would attenuate in a reasonable and mutually balanced way the cut-off effect produced by the unadjusted equidistance line due to the geographical configuration of the coasts of Somalia, Kenya and Tanzania. The resulting line would end at its intersection with the 200-nautical-mile limit from the coast of Kenya, at Point B. The line thus adjusted was depicted on sketch-map No. 11.
  20. The maritime boundary beyond 200 nautical miles continued along the same geodetic line as the adjusted line within 200 nautical miles until it reached the outer limits of the parties’ continental shelves, which were to be delineated by Somalia and Kenya, respectively, until it reached the area where the rights of third States could be affected.
  21. Depending on the extent of Kenya’s entitlement to a continental shelf beyond 200 nautical miles as it would be established in the future on the basis of the Commission’s recommendation, the delimitation line gave rise to an area of limited size located beyond 200 nautical miles from the coast of Kenya and within 200 nautical miles from the coast of Somalia, but on the Kenyan side of the delimitation line (“grey area”). That possible grey area was depicted on sketch-map No. 12.
  22. Kenya had not violated its international obligations through its maritime activities in the disputed area. Since Kenya’s international responsibility was not engaged, the court needed not examine Somalia’s request for reparation. Somalia’s submission should be rejected.

Separate opinion of Donoghue, P & ICJJ

  1. Both parties had asked the court to delimit the continental shelf beyond 200 nautical miles and that neither party had questioned the other party’s entitlement to outer continental shelf or the other party’s claim that, in certain parts of the area in which the parties’ claims overlapped, such entitlement extended to 350 nautical miles.
  2. The court had scant evidence regarding the existence, shape, extent and continuity of any outer continental shelf that could appertain to the parties. The instant case was entirely different from other cases in which a tribunal had delimited the outer continental shelf of two States.
  3. It could not be presumed that a line that achieves an equitable delimitation of the 200-nautical-mile zones would also result in equitable delimitation of overlapping areas of two States’ outer continental shelf, since the juridical basis for entitlement to outer continental shelf was entirely different from the basis for entitlement within 200 nautical miles.

Separate opinion of Abraham, ICJJ

  1. For the court to be able to justify an adjustment, the concavity of the coastline lay within the area to be delimited. Yet, there was no conspicuous concavity in the configuration of Somalia’s coast to the North of Kenya, or in the way in which the Somalian and Kenyan coastlines extend in broadly the same general direction.
  2. The cut-off effect for Kenya, which resulted mainly from the configuration of its coast in relation to that of Tanzania to the south, was not sufficiently serious or significant to give rise to an adjustment of the equidistance line, in any event not on the scale of that made by the court.

 

Separate opinion of Yusuf, ICJJ

  1. The way in which the base points had been selected for the construction of the median line departs from the provisions of UNCLOS and from the jurisprudence of the court. The selected base points had resulted in a contrived median line, the construction of which appeared be aimed at producing a line which come as close as possible to a bisector line, although there was nothing that justifies the use of a bisector for the delimitation of the territorial sea between Somalia and Kenya.
  2. With respect to the delimitation of the exclusive economic zone and the continental shelf, the three-stage methodology had been implemented in the judgment, particularly with regard to the adjustment of the provisional equidistance line through an unprecedented search for a concavity and an elusive cut-off in a so-called broader geographical configuration.
  3. The extraneous geographical circumstances that lay beyond the geography and the relevant coastlines of the parties could only be understood as a judicial refashioning of geography, which was neither consistent with the cardinal principle that the land dominated the sea nor with the practice of the court.
  4. The use of a geodetic line based on an incorrectly adjusted equidistance line brought into the delimitation of the area beyond 200 nautical miles the same flawed reasoning used for the area within the 200-nautical-mile zone. The reasoning did not take into account the fact that any cut-off effect of Kenya’s coastal projections in the outer continental shelf could solely be due to its agreement with Tanzania, which should have no legal effect on the delimitation between Somalia and Kenya. Moreover, the incorrect adjustment of the equidistance line gave rise to what was referred to as a possible grey area, which could also lead in the future to a court-created new problem between the parties.

Declaration of Xue, ICJJ

  1. There was no mandatory delimitation methodology provided for under UNCLOS; all that was required was to achieve an equitable solution, either through negotiations or by a third-party settlement. The historical developments on the principles for the delimitation of the continental shelf suggested that the equidistance method was never accepted as a rule in international law that applies to maritime delimitations. It was the equitable principles enunciated by the court in the North Sea Continental Shelf judgment that became the guiding principles for maritime delimitation and subsequently were reflected in articles 74 and 83 of UNCLOS.
  2. The three-stage approach, notwithstanding its methodological certainty and objectivity, was a practice-based method and its criteria and techniques should not be applied mechanically.
  3. The coastline of the parties in the area was simply straight, without any particular maritime features or indentations. Being adjacent to each other, the coasts of the parties were both seaward, abutting the same maritime area and the same continental shelf. As sketch-map No. 8 in the Judgment illustrated, a substantial portion of the relevant coast of Somalia identified by the court did not generate entitlements that actually overlapped with those from the Kenyan coast.
  4. Although radial projection was normally used to identify the relevant coasts, it was questionable to use it under the present circumstances. It overstretched the length of the relevant coasts, particularly that on the Somali side. The Ghana/Côte d’Ivoire case was instructive since they shared many similarities with the present case.
  5. It should be the geographic reality and genuine overlapping entitlements that determined which part of a coast was relevant. The relevant area identified by the court did not encompass the entire potential overlapping entitlements of the parties in the instant case. Once the court decided to go ahead with the delimitation of the boundary in the outer continental shelf, even with care, it meant that the relevant area should include the continental shelf beyond 200 nautical miles. With the radial projection methodology, it was difficult to proceed to identifying the relevant coasts and the relevant area so that they included the potential overlapping entitlements in the continental shelf beyond 200 nautical miles, as its outer limits were not yet determined.
  6. The coasts identified were relevant, irrespective of whether the continental shelf was within 200 nautical miles or beyond. It was evident that all the overlapping entitlements of the parties could be generated from the coasts of the parties within 200 nautical miles. If frontal projections were used, the relevant coasts of the parties would extend on each side of the land boundary terminus for a 200-nautical-mile distance and the relevant area would extend south-eastward perpendicular to the relevant coasts to the limit of 200 nautical miles, and further down to the limit of 350 nautical miles as claimed by Kenya.
  7. In the south, the relevant area was confined by the perpendicular line and the boundary agreed between Kenya and Tanzania, and extended along the agreed boundary until the 350-nautical-mile limit as claimed by Kenya. To omit the continental shelf beyond 200 nautical miles from the relevant area would not enable the court to conduct a meaningful assessment of the proportion between the ratio of the length of the relevant coasts of the parties and the ratio of the shares of the relevant area apportioned to each of them.
  8. Methodological approaches should only serve as a means to achieve an equitable solution, but not be an end in itself. The paramount consideration should be given to the goal of achieving an equitable solution. Maritime delimitation was not just about the sharing of a maritime area. The underlying interests often rested at the heart of the dispute between the parties. When the equidistance method alone could not fulfil the objective of achieving an equitable solution in all circumstances, the equitable principles should come into play. In essence, the second stage was a crucial means to ensuring the equitableness of the final result of the delimitation. That should be the strength of the three-stage approach.
  9. The three-stage approach would in effect evolve into a substitute for the equidistance method and the equitable principles would vanish from the process of delimitation. The fear that the boundless proliferation of relevant circumstances would open up a risk of assimilating judgments based on law to those rendered ex aequo et bono, was unfounded, because the notion of relevant circumstances itself was judicially developed and applied in the present case.
  10. The distinct status and role of the disproportionality test was sound in theory, but in practice it could not play that role. As it was demonstrated in the instant case, when geographical factors were the only relevant circumstances that call for adjustment of the equidistance line, proportionality between the two ratios would be the primary consideration for the court to rely on.

 

Separate opinion of Guillaume, ad hoc ICJJ

  1. Somalia did not acquiesce to Kenya’s positions concerning the delimitation of its territorial sea and its continental shelf beyond 200 nautical miles along a parallel of latitude. However, the situation was different as regards the exclusive economic zone since Kenya claimed this parallel of latitude in 1979 and 2005 by presidential proclamations circulated to all United Nations Member States, and that Somalia did not object until 2009.
  2. The court should consider whether circulation of that kind was sufficient to give rise to a tacit agreement by acquiescence, or whether a State was required to notify its neighbour of its claims directly. Prior to 2018, both in its negotiations with Somalia and before the court, Kenya never claimed that Somalia had acquiesced, and it behaved as if the boundary of the exclusive economic zone had yet to be established.
  3. Kenya and Somalia were bound by the three agreements concluded between Italy and the United Kingdom, the former colonial Powers, in 1924, 1927 and 1933, which fixed the boundary between them. Those agreements were not abrogated in whole or in part by either express or tacit agreement between the parties. It was incumbent on the court to apply them in accordance with article 15 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea.
  4. The delimitation line was a straight line running in a south-easterly direction at right angles to the general direction of the coast at Dar Es Salam. Further, the delimitation line adopted by the court was virtually the same as the line fixed under the 1927/1933 treaty arrangement.

PerRobinson, ICJJ (partly concurring and partly dissenting)

  1. In order to determine a State’s entitlement to a continental shelf beyond 200 nautical miles there should be in existence a continental margin that extended beyond 200 nautical miles and in order to delimit, the court should have before it reliable evidence that there was in existence in the area beyond 200 nautical miles a submerged prolongation of the land mass of the coastal state.
  2. Recommendations by the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf on the outer limit of the continental shelf do not constitute a necessary precondition for maritime delimitation by the court. To carry out such a delimitation, the court should be in possession of reliable evidence confirming the existence of a continental shelf in the area beyond 200 nautical miles.
  3. The lack of any evidence of geological and geomorphological data to substantiate the existence of a continental shelf, undermined the validity of the finding in the delimitation of the continental shelf beyond 200 nautical miles because the environment was riddled with uncertainty.
  4. In maritime delimitation, account should be taken of a concavity that was not within the area to be delimited but was part of a so-called broader geographical configuration, was problematic. The concept of a broader geographical configuration was itself broad and vague because where the configuration began and ended was a legitimate question.
  5. The cut-off effect could result more from the geographical feature of a third State not a party to the dispute and not in the delimitation area than from the geographical feature on the coast of the State that was a party to the dispute and was within the area to be delimited. That was because the Tanzanian concavity, that was not within the area to be delimited, appeared more pronounced than the Kenyan concavity, that was within the area to be delimited.
  6. The odd result would be a refashioning of geography whereby an adjustment was made to the equidistance line, more on account of a concavity in the Tanzanian coastline than the concavity in the Kenyan coastline a result that was wholly inconsistent with the court’s finding in Cameroon v Nigeria. In order to qualify as a relevant circumstance for the purpose of adjusting the equidistance line, the concavity should be within the area to be delimited. Somalia would appear to be disadvantaged by reason of a concavity that was not within the area to be delimited, an outcome that could scarcely be described as equitable.

Application partly allowed.

Orders:

(1) Unanimously,

Found that there was no agreed maritime boundary between the Federal Republic of Somalia and the Republic of Kenya that followed the parallel of latitude described in paragraph 35 [of the Judgment];

(2) Unanimously,

Decided that the starting-point of the single maritime boundary delimiting the respective maritime areas between the Federal Republic of Somalia and the Republic of Kenya was the intersection of the straight line extending from the final permanent boundary beacon (PB 29) at right angles to the general direction of the coast with the low-water line, at the point with co-ordinates 1° 39′ 44.0″ S and 41° 33′ 34.4″ E (WGS 84);

(3) Unanimously,

Decided that, from the starting-point, the maritime boundary in the territorial sea followed the median line described at paragraph 117 [of the Judgment] until it reaches the 12-nautical-mile limit at the point with co-ordinates 1° 47′ 39.1″ S and 41° 43′ 46.8″ E (WGS 84) (Point A);

(4) By ten votes to four,

Decided that, from the end of the boundary in the territorial sea (Point A), the single maritime boundary delimiting the exclusive economic zone and the continental shelf up to 200 nautical miles between the Federal Republic of Somalia and the Republic of Kenya followed the geodetic line starting with azimuth 114° until it reaches the 200-nautical-mile limit measured from the baselines from – 2 – which the breadth of the territorial sea of the Republic of Kenya is measured, at the point with co-ordinates 3° 4′ 21.3″ S and 44° 35′ 30.7″ E (WGS 84) (Point B); IN FAVOUR: President Donoghue; Vice-President Gevorgian; Judges Tomka, Bennouna, Xue, Sebutinde, Robinson, Iwasawa, Nolte; Judge ad hoc Guillaume; AGAINST: Judges Abraham, Yusuf, Bhandari, Salam;

(5) By nine votes to five,

Decided that, from Point B, the maritime boundary delimiting the continental shelf continued along the same geodetic line until it reached the outer limits of the continental shelf or the area where the rights of third States could be affected; IN FAVOUR: President Donoghue; Vice-President Gevorgian; Judges Tomka, Bennouna, Xue, Sebutinde, Iwasawa, Nolte; Judge ad hoc Guillaume; AGAINST: Judges Abraham, Yusuf, Bhandari, Robinson, Salam;

(6) Unanimously,

Rejected the claim made by the Federal Republic of Somalia in its final submission number 4 [concerning the allegation that the Republic of Kenya, by its conduct in the disputed area, had violated its international obligations].

 

Write a comment:

*

 

captcha

Please enter the CAPTCHA text

 

© 2022 National Council for Law Reporting (Kenya Law) is ISO 9001:2015 Certified | Creative Commons | Privacy Policy & Disclaimer