¹ United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (entered into force 16 November 1994) 1833 UNTS 397 (UNCLOS).

² Frontier Dispute (Burkina Faso/Republic of Mali), Judgment [1986] ICJ Rep 554, [18]; Land, Island and Maritime Frontier Dispute (El Salvador/Honduras: Nicaragua intervening), Judgment [1992] ICJ Rep 351 [45].

³ For example, the right of coastal states to the continental shelf is inherent and does not depend on any prior action. See discussion in Section 2 below.

⁴ UNCLOS (n 1) art 56; Attard, David, The Exclusive Economic Zone in International Law (Oxford University Press 1987) 62–63Google Scholar; Shaw, Malcolm, International Law (8th edn, Cambridge University Press 2017) 483CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁵ UNCLOS (n 1) art 74; Territorial and Maritime Dispute (Nicaragua v Colombia), Judgment [2012] ICJ Rep 624, [141]; Andreone, Gemma, ‘The Economic Exclusive Zone’ in Rothwell, Donald R and others (eds), The Oxford Handbook of the Law of the Sea (Oxford University Press 2015) 159, 163Google Scholar.

⁶ UNCLOS (n 1) art 77(3); North Sea Continental Shelf Cases (Federal Republic of Germany/Denmark; Federal Republic of Germany/Netherlands), Judgment [1969] ICJ Rep 3, [19], [39] (in which the International Court of Justice (ICJ) defined the right to the continental shelf as ‘ipso facto and ab initio’).

⁷ This proposition is also accepted in the literature. Examples include Attard (n 4) 55, 58 (‘since Part V on the EEZ does not contain similar provisions, it may be argued that the drafters had no intention to apply the same characteristics to the zone. It had been stated that the ICNT implicitly admitted the possibility of coastal States which may not have an EEZ … A number of publicists who have considered the problem have concluded that the EEZ must be declared’); Barbara Kwiatkowska, The 200 Mile Exclusive Economic Zone in the New Law of the Sea (Martinus Nijhoff 1989) 17 (‘However, in this author's view, the most essential aspect of this question is the fact that the coastal state does not possess rights over the EEZ ipso jure and ab initio but must act in order to establish all or any of its rights under the EEZ regime); Dolliver Nelson, ‘Exclusive Economic Zone’, Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law, March 2008, para 23 (‘In the first place, the right of a coastal State over its continental shelf, whether it applies to the seabed and subsoil within or outside the zone, need not be proclaimed. These rights are exclusive and exist ipso facto and ab initio. On the other hand, the rights of the coastal State over the superjacent waters of its EEZ are not inherent but will have to be declared and this has been the practice of States in this matter); Dahmani, Mohamed, The Fisheries Regime of the Exclusive Economic Zone (Martinus Nijhoff 1987) 36Google Scholar (‘while in the case of the continental shelf, the Convention expressly provides that the coastal state's rights do not depend on occupation or proclamation, there is no such provision in part V, The Exclusive Economic Zone); Attard, David, Fitzmaurice, Malgosia and Gutierrez, Norman A Martinez (eds), The Imli Manual on International Maritime Law: Volume I: The Law of the Sea (1st edn, Oxford University Press 2014) 185Google Scholar (‘First, coastal State jurisdiction in the EEZ may be exercised only after a specific declaration by the State concerned. The need for this declaration is not expressly provided in any article of UNCLOS, but it emerges a contrario by Article 77 paragraph 3 on the continental shelf); Tanaka, Yoshifumi, The International Law of the Sea (2nd edn, Cambridge University Press 2015) 128CrossRefGoogle Scholar (‘unlike the continental shelf, the coastal State must claim the zone in order to establish an EEZ). However, there are some who claim the opposite – that the EEZ exists in and of itself, and that there is no need for a claim; for example, Bailey, James E III, ‘The Exclusive Economic Zone: Its Development and Future in International and Domestic Law’ (1985) 45(6) Louisiana Law Review 1269Google Scholar, 1270 and fn 9. As argued in the Introduction, note that among legal scholars, even when accepting the need for proclamation, no consideration is given to the nature of that proclamation.

⁸ UNCLOS (n 1) art 75.

⁹ Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (entered into force 27 January 1980) 1155 UNTS 331, art 31.

¹⁰ ‘Proclamation’, Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/proclamation; ‘Proclamation’, Oxford Online Dictionary, https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/proclamation.

¹¹ See also text at nn 21–41.

¹² UN Office of Legal Affairs (OLA), ‘Division for Ocean Affairs and the Law of the Sea’, http://legal.un.org/ola/div_doalos.aspx?section=doalos (which explains the role of DOALOS); UN Division of Ocean Affairs and the Law of the Sea (DOALOS), ‘Technical Assistance Provided by the Division of Ocean Affairs and the Law of the Sea’, http://www.un.org/Depts/los/TechAsst.htm (explaining the assistance it provides for states).

¹³ For example, UN DOALOS, The Law of the Sea: Training Manual for Delineation of the Outer Limits of the Continental Shelf Beyond 200 Nautical Miles and for Preparation of Submissions to the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf (United Nations 2006) I-8.

¹⁴ For information on the obligations of ‘deposit’ and ‘due publicity’ in UNCLOS (n 1) arts 16, 75 and 84 see UN DOALOS, ‘Deposit and Due Publicity: Background Information’, http://www.un.org/Depts/los/legislationandtreaties/backgroud_deposit.htm.

¹⁵ For example, publicity, the requirement of authority and intent: see International Law Commission (ILC), Guiding Principles Applicable to Unilateral Declarations of States Capable of Creating Legal Obligations, with Commentaries thereto (2006), UN Doc A/61/10. The ILC has no binding force; however, this document was created at the request of the UN General Assembly and has significant influence: see UNGA Res 51/160 (16 December 1996), UN Doc A/RES/51/160, para 13; Shaw (n 4) 90–91.

¹⁶ ILC, Víctor Rodríguez Cedeño, First Report on Unilateral Acts of States (5 March 1998), UN Doc A/CN.4/486, para 59.

¹⁷ Sohn, Louis B and others, Cases and Materials on the Law of the Sea (2nd edn, Brill 2014) 471Google Scholar; Harry S Truman, ‘Proclamation 2668: Policy of the United States with Respect to Coastal Fisheries in Certain Areas of the High Seas’, 28 September 1945.

¹⁸ This is the historical root of the concept of the EEZ as the first act after 1945 to extend the jurisdiction of coastal states seaward: RR Churchill and AV Lowe, The Law of the Sea (3rd edn, Juris Publishing 1999) 160; Attard (n 4) 1–2. This proclamation, in relation to coastal fisheries, refers to a ‘jurisdictional’ basis for implementing conservation measures in the adjacent sea: see Fisheries Jurisdiction (Federal Republic of Germany v Iceland), Judgment [1974] ICJ Rep 175, declaration of Judge Nagendra Singh, Pt IV. However, the first proclamation that referred explicitly to the EEZ was the 1947 Declaration of Chile: Francisco Orrego Vicuña, The Exclusive Economic Zone, Regime and Legal Nature under International Law (Cambridge University Press 1989) 3.

¹⁹ The United States is not a party to the Convention, but did proclaim an EEZ, see Sohn and others (n 17) 490; Ronald Reagan, ‘Proclamation 5030 – Exclusive Economic Zone of the United States of America’, 10 March 1983, https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/codification/proclamations/05030.html.

²⁰ Argentina, Act No 23.968 of 14 August 1991, DOALOS, http://www.un.org/Depts/los/LEGISLATIONANDTREATIES/PDFFILES/ARG_1991_23968.pdf.

²¹ Australia's Seas and Submerged Lands Act 1973, as amended by the Maritime Legislation Amendment Act 1994, DOALOS, http://www.un.org/Depts/los/LEGISLATIONANDTREATIES/PDFFILES/aus_1994_sea_act.pdf.

²² Brazil, Law No 8.617 of 4 January 1993 on the Territorial Sea, the Contiguous Zone, the Exclusive Economic Zone and the Continental Shelf, DOALOS, http://www.un.org/Depts/los/LEGISLATIONANDTREATIES/PDFFILES/BRA_1993_8617.pdf.

²³ Oceans Act of 18 December 1996, DOALOS, http://www.un.org/depts/los/LEGISLATIONANDTREATIES/PDFFILES/CAN_1996_Act.pdf.

²⁴ Chile, Law No. 18.565 Amending the Civil Code with regard to Maritime Space, 13 October 1986, DOALOS, http://www.un.org/Depts/los/LEGISLATIONANDTREATIES/PDFFILES/CHL_1986_18565.pdf.

²⁵ China, Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf Act: Adopted at the 3rd Session of the Standing Committee of the 9th National People's Congress, 26 June 1998, DOALOS, http://www.un.org/Depts/los/LEGISLATIONANDTREATIES/PDFFILES/chn_1998_eez_act.pdf.

²⁶ Colombia, Act No 10 of 4 August 1978, Establishing Rules Concerning the Territorial Sea, the Exclusive Economic Zone and the Continental Shelf and Regulating Other Matters, DOALOS, http://www.un.org/Depts/los/LEGISLATIONANDTREATIES/PDFFILES/COL_1978_Act.pdf.

²⁷ Croatia, The Maritime Code of 1994, 27 January 1994, DOALOS, http://www.un.org/Depts/los/LEGISLATIONANDTREATIES/PDFFILES/HRV_1994_Code.pdf.

²⁸ Cyprus, A Law to Provide for the Proclamation of the Exclusive Economic Zone by the Republic of Cyprus (2 April 2004), DOALOS, http://www.un.org/Depts/los/LEGISLATIONANDTREATIES/PDFFILES/cyp_2004_eez_proclamation.pdf; The Exclusive Economic Zone and the Continental Shelf Laws 2004 and 2014 (English translation and consolidation), DOALOS, http://www.un.org/Depts/los/LEGISLATIONANDTREATIES/PDFFILES/CYP_EEZ-CS_Law_2014.pdf. It is worth mentioning that Cyprus proclaimed an EEZ after signing a delimitation agreement with Egypt in 2004: Agreement between the Republic of Cyprus and the Arab Republic of Egypt on the Delimitation of the Exclusive Economic Zone, DOALOS, 17 February 2003, http://www.un.org/Depts/los/LEGISLATIONANDTREATIES/PDFFILES/TREATIES/EGY-CYP2003EZ.pdf.

²⁹ Denmark adopted an Act in 1996 (Act No 411, 22 May 1996) and several Executive Orders concerning Denmark's EEZ; Executive Order No 584, 24 June 1996; Executive Order No 613, 19 July 2002; Executive Order on the Exclusive Economic Zone of Greenland, 20 October 2004; Denmark also issued a Royal Decree regarding the Act on Exclusive Economic Zones for Greenland, 15 October 2004: see Denmark,  ‘Legislation’, DOALOS, http://www.un.org/Depts/los/LEGISLATIONANDTREATIES/STATEFILES/DNK.htm.

³⁰ Finland, Act on the Exclusive Economic Zone of Finland, 26 November 2004, DOALOS, Law of the Sea Bulletin, No. 57 (2005) 106, https://www.un.org/Depts/los/doalos_publications/LOSBulltins/bulletinpdf/bulletin57e.pdf; and Finland, Government Decree on the Exclusive Economic Zone, DOALOS, 2 December 2004, Law of the Sea Bulletin, No 57 (2005) 111, https://www.un.org/Depts/los/doalos_publications/LOSBulletins/bulletinpdf/bulletin57e.pdf.

³¹ Iceland, Law No 41 of 1 June 1979 concerning the Territorial Sea, the Economic Zone and the Continental Shelf, DOALOS, http://www.un.org/Depts/los/LEGISLATIONANDTREATIES/PDFFILES/ISL_1979_Law.pdf.

³² Decree No 6433: Delineation of the Boundaries of the Exclusive Economic Zone of Lebanon, 16 November 2011, DOALOS, http://www.un.org/Depts/los/LEGISLATIONANDTREATIES/PDFFILES/lbn_2011decree6433.pdf. Note that Lebanon did not proclaim the full extent of the territory but according to the law it will be determined according to the rules of the Convention.

³³ Exclusive Economic Zone Kingdom Act, 27 May 1999; Decree Determining the Outer Limits of the Exclusive Economic Zone, 13 March 2000; Decree Determining the Outer Limits of the Exclusive Economic Zone in the Caribbean, 10 June 2010: The Netherlands, Legislation, DOALOS, http://www.un.org/Depts/los/LEGISLATIONANDTREATIES/STATEFILES/NLD.htm.

³⁴ Territorial Sea and Exclusive Economic Zone Act 1977, Act No 28 of 26 September 1977 as amended by Act No 146 of 1980, DOALOS, http://www.un.org/Depts/los/LEGISLATIONANDTREATIES/PDFFILES/NZL_1980_Act.pdf; New Zealand has also proclaimed Tokelau's EEZ: see Tokelau (Territorial Sea and Exclusive Economic Zone) Act 1977, DOALOS, http://www.un.org/Depts/los/LEGISLATIONANDTREATIES/PDFFILES/NZL_1977_Act.pdf.

³⁵ Act No 91 of 17 December 1976 relating to the Economic Zone of Norway, DOALOS, http://www.un.org/Depts/los/LEGISLATIONANDTREATIES/PDFFILES/NOR_1976_Act.pdf.

³⁶ Decree of the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR on the Economic Zone of the USSR, 10 December 1976, DOALOS, http://www.un.org/Depts/los/LEGISLATIONANDTREATIES/PDFFILES/RUS_1984_Decree.pdf; Federal Act on the Exclusive Economic Zone of the Russian Federation, 2 December 1998, DOALOS, http://www.un.org/Depts/los/LEGISLATIONANDTREATIES/PDFFILES/RUS_1998_Act_EZ.pdf.

³⁷ Act on Sweden's Economic Zone, 3 December 1992, DOALOS, http://www.un.org/Depts/los/LEGISLATIONANDTREATIES/PDFFILES/SWE_1992_Act.pdf. It is important to note that Sweden did not proclaim the maximum extent of the zone.

³⁸ Turkey is not a party to UNCLOS, but it has proclaimed an EEZ: Decree by the Council of Ministers, No 86/11264, 17 December 1986, DOALOS, http://www.un.org/Depts/los/LEGISLATIONANDTREATIES/PDFFILES/TUR_1986_Decree.pdf.

³⁹ For full information on states’ legislation, see DOALOS, http://www.un.org/Depts/los/LEGISLATIONANDTREATIES/depositpublicity.htm.

⁴⁰ Nautical mile (nm) is a measurement unit of distance at sea; 1 nm equals 1.852 kilometres: ‘Nautical Mile’, Merriam-Webster Dictionary, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/nautical%20mile; Bureau International des Poids et Mesures, The International System of Units (SI) (8th edn, Organisation Intergouvernementale de la Convention du Mètre 2006), 127.

⁴¹ Attard (n 4) 59–60; see also discussion in the next section.

⁴² Colombia, El Salvador and Libya have signed the Convention but have not ratified it. The United States and Peru have neither signed nor ratified the Convention: UN Treaty Collection, ‘Status of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea’, https://treaties.un.org/Pages/ViewDetailsIII.aspx?src=TREATY&mtdsg_no=XXI-6&chapter=21&Temp=mtdsg3&clang=_en.

⁴³ Smith, Robert W, Exclusive Economic Zone Claims: An Analysis and Primary Documents (Martinus Nijhoff 1986) 26Google Scholar; Rothwell, Donald R and Stephens, Tim, The International Law of the Sea (2nd edn, Hart 2016) 86Google Scholar.

⁴⁴ Attard (n 4) 13–14; Rothwell and Stephens (n 43) 10.

⁴⁵ Geneva Convention on the Continental Shelf (entered into force 10 June 1964) 499 UNTS 311.

⁴⁶ As well as disregard for the issue of control of offshore natural resources: Tanaka (n 7) 25.

⁴⁷ Attard (n 4) 27, 30; Churchill, Robin R, ‘The 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea’ in Rothwell, Donald R and others (eds), The Oxford Handbook of the Law of the Sea (Oxford University Press 2015) 24, 25Google Scholar.

⁴⁸ ibid.

⁴⁹ Attard (n 4) 1, 277. See also the discussions in the following pages regarding state practice according to geographical and institutional affiliation: Rothwell and Stephens (n 43) 86–87; Orrego Vicuña (n 18) 228–29, 232; Continental Shelf (Libyan Arab Jamahiriya/Malta), Judgment [1985] ICJ Rep 13, [34] (although in this case the ICJ considered the basis for entitlement to be ‘distance’ rather than ‘proclamation’. This point will be addressed in the next part of the article).

⁵⁰ Orrego Vicuña (n 18) 236–37; Kwiatkowska (n 7) 28.

⁵¹ Attard (n 4) 49–51.

⁵² Kwiatkowska (n 7) 17; Attard (n 4) 56–57. Attard argues that this position was also supported by the 1982 Continental Shelf (Tunisia/Libyan Arab Jamahiriya) case ([1982] ICJ Rep 18): see Attard, ibid 57–58. However, it is important to note that while the ICJ may have implicitly confirmed that the EEZ is an innate concept and might be based on acquisition, it did not regard the act of acquisition, its nature or legal status; thus no consideration was given to the question of proclamation.

⁵³ See, for example, Sohn and others (n 17) 473.

⁵⁴ The exclusive fishery zone (EFZ) is considered to be the origin of the EEZ as a concept for claims by coastal states in zones beyond their territorial sea, going back to the negotiations for the 1958 Geneva Conventions on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS I), which generated a new maritime zone corresponding to the EFZ. The EEZ is a broader concept than the EFZ, encompassing all natural resources, including the seabed and water column, while the EFZ is more limited and relates only to fisheries: see Andreone (n 5) 160–61, 163; Rothwell and Stephens (n 43) 86–87; Tanaka (n 7) 352.

⁵⁵ Fisheries Case (United Kingdom v Norway), Judgment [1951] ICJ Rep 116; Fisheries Jurisdiction (Germany v Iceland) (n 18); Fisheries Jurisdiction (United Kingdom v Iceland), Judgment [1974] ICJ Rep 3.

⁵⁶ 1974 Fisheries Jurisdiction (UK v Iceland), ibid, separate opinion of Judge Sir Humphrey Waldock, [35].

⁵⁷ See nn 44–49; Attard (n 4) 14–23. Those claims related mostly to an EFZ: for example, Iceland (1958); Norway (1961); Latin American states such as Ecuador and Argentina (1966); Brazil (1970); there were also joint claims: Rothwell and Stephens (n 43) 10–11.

⁵⁸ 1974 Fisheries Jurisdiction (UK v Iceland) (n 55)

⁵⁹ ibid; see also dissenting opinion of Judge Gros, [8]–[9], [15]. Judge Gros also agreed with the Court's argument that the extension was not founded in international law.

⁶⁰ 1951 Fisheries Case (UK v Norway) (n 55).

⁶¹ 1974 Fisheries Jurisdiction (Germany v Iceland) (n 18) [45], [49]; 1974 Fisheries Jurisdiction (UK v Iceland) (n 55) [52], [57]–[58], and separate opinion of Judge Sir Humphrey Waldock, [2], [5], [8]–[9].

⁶² Sohn and others (n 17) 488.

⁶³ 1974 Fisheries Jurisdiction (Germany v Iceland) (n 18) [54]; 1974 Fisheries Jurisdiction (UK v Iceland) (n 55) [62], [67]

⁶⁴ 1974 Fisheries Jurisdiction (Germany v Iceland) (n 18) [54], [63].

⁶⁵ ibid  [49]; 1974 Fisheries Jurisdiction (UK v Iceland) (n 55) [57]–[58], and separate opinion of Judge Sir Humphrey Waldock, [2].

⁶⁶ 1974 Fisheries Jurisdiction (UK v Iceland) (n 55) separate opinion of Judge Sir Humphrey Waldock, [8]–[9], [11].

⁶⁷ 1974 Fisheries Jurisdiction (Germany v Iceland) (n 18) 208–09, declaration of Judge Ignacio-Pinto, and 212, declaration of Judge Nagendra Singh. See also 1974 Fisheries Jurisdiction (UK v Iceland) (n 55) 39–40, declaration of Judge Nagendra Singh.

⁶⁸ 1974 Fisheries Jurisdiction (Germany v Iceland) (n 18) 215–16, declaration of Judge Nagendra Singh.

⁶⁹ Continental Shelf (Tunisia/Libyan Arab Jamahiriya) (n 52) [87].

⁷⁰ Libya declared a fishery protection zone in 2005 and declared its EEZ in 2009, while Tunisia asserted jurisdiction over its EEZ in 2005: DOALOS, Office of Legal Affairs, Declaration of a Libyan Fisheries Protection Zone in the Mediterranean Sea, 24 February 2005, Law of the Sea Bulletin No 58, 2005, 15; DOALOS, Office of Legal Affairs, General People's Committee Decision No 260 of AJ 1377 (AD 2009) concerning the Declaration of the Exclusive Economic Zone of the Great Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Law of the Sea Bulletin No 72, 2010, 78; DOALOS, Office of Legal Affairs, Act No 50/2005, 27 June 2005, concerning the Exclusive Economic Zone Off the Tunisian Coasts, Law of the Sea Bulletin No 58, 2005, 19.

⁷¹ For example, one opinion referred to the transition from natural prolongation to the criterion of distance regarding entitlement to the continental shelf, which was also affected by the new concept of the 200 nm EEZ: Tunisia/Libya (n 52) separate opinion of Judge Jiménez De Aréchaga, [51]–[52], [54]. Another opinion stated that the concept of an EEZ was based on the proposition that a coastal state should have functional sovereign rights over the natural resources, regardless of its continental shelf; the claim for sovereign rights up to 200 nm is based on a distance criterion: ibid, dissenting opinion of Judge Evensen, [7]–[8]. Another opinion stated that the notion of natural prolongation had lost its significance with the introduction of the criterion of the 200 nm distance, under the influence of the new concept of the EEZ. This opinion also stated that the distance criterion plays a decisively important role in defining the expanse of the respective areas, thus also qualifying their very nature: ibid, dissenting opinion of Judge Oda, [107], [160]. This means that the extent of the EEZ is not just a geographical measurement but is also the basis for entitlement.

⁷² The opinion of Judge Jiménez De Aréchaga also recognised that ‘the proclamation by 86 coastal States of economic zones, fishery zones or fishery conservation zones, made in conformity with the texts of the Conference, constitutes a widespread practice of States which has hardened into a customary rule’: Tunisia/Libya (n 52) separate opinion of Judge Jiménez De Aréchaga, [54].

⁷³ Delimitation of the Maritime Boundary in the Gulf of Maine Area (Canada/United States of America), Judgment [1984] ICJ Rep 246, [20], [68].

⁷⁴ Reagan (n 19).

⁷⁵ Gulf of Maine (n 73) [68], [94].

⁷⁶ ibid [94]; ‘Statement by the President dated 10 March 1983’, DOALOS, 10 March 1983, http://www.un.org/Depts/los/LEGISLATIONANDTREATIES/PDFFILES/USA_1983_Statement.pdf.

⁷⁷ Gulf of Maine (n 73) [94].

⁷⁸ ibid [103].

⁷⁹ ibid. While the concept of ‘natural prolongation’ is more accurate for entitlement than the distance criterion, as it establishes entitlement to the continental shelf rather than merely indicating the breadth of the zone, there are still doubts as to the source upon which the Court relied in this argument. Although it makes sense that where there is no coast there cannot be an EEZ, the basis for entitlement is still different.

⁸⁰ Gulf of Maine (n 73) [103].

⁸¹ ibid, dissenting opinion of Judge Gros, [7].

⁸² ibid.

⁸³ Libya/Malta (n 49) [32].

⁸⁴ ibid [17].

⁸⁵ ibid [34].

⁸⁶ Gulf of Maine (n 73) [103].

⁸⁷ Libya/Malta (n 49) separate opinion of Vice-President Sette-Camara, 69–70.

⁸⁸ See, for example, Bailey (n 7).

⁸⁹ El Salvador/Honduras (n 2) [330].

⁹⁰ Constitution of the Republic of Honduras (Decree No 131 of 11 January 1982), DOALOS, 11 January 1982, http://www.un.org/Depts/los/LEGISLATIONANDTREATIES/PDFFILES/HND_1982_Constitution.pdf.

⁹¹ Act No 205 of 19 December 1979 on the Continental Shelf and Adjacent Sea, DOALOS, 19 December 1979, http://www.un.org/Depts/los/LEGISLATIONANDTREATIES/PDFFILES/NIC_1979_Act.pdf.

⁹² Though it also employed the distance criterion: see El Salvador/Honduras (n 2) [419]–[420].

⁹³ Gulf of Maine (n 73); Maritime Delimitation in the Area between Greenland and Jan Mayen (Denmark v Norway), Judgment [1993] ICJ Rep 38, [47].

⁹⁴ Libya/Malta (n 49); El Salvador/Honduras (n 2).

⁹⁵ Maritime Delimitation – Greenland and Jan Mayen (n 93) separate opinion of Vice-President Oda, [16]–[18].

⁹⁶ On 16 November 1994.

⁹⁷ See Maritime Delimitation and Territorial Questions between Qatar and Bahrain, Merits, Judgment [2001] ICJ Rep 40 (where Bahrain did not proclaim an EEZ or a fishery zone at all, while Qatar proclaimed ‘sovereign rights over natural and marine resources and fisheries in the areas contiguous to the territorial sea’, which is more limited in extent than the 200 nm EEZ: see Bahrain, ‘Legislation’, DOALOS, http://www.un.org/Depts/los/LEGISLATIONANDTREATIES/STATEFILES/BHR.htm; Declaration by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 2 June 1974, DOALOS, http://www.un.org/Depts/los/LEGISLATIONANDTREATIES/PDFFILES/QAT_1974_Declaration.pdf (Qatar Declaration). Another example is Land and Maritime Boundary between Cameroon and Nigeria (Cameroon v Nigeria: Equatorial Guinea intervening), Judgment [2002] ICJ Rep 303 (where Nigeria and Equatorial Guinea established entitlement to their EEZ through domestic legislation, but Cameroon did not: Nigeria's Exclusive Economic Zone Decree No 28 of 5 October 1978, DOALOS, 5 October 1978, http://www.un.org/Depts/los/LEGISLATIONANDTREATIES/PDFFILES/NGA_1978_Decree.pdf; Act No 15/1984 of 12 November 1984 on the Territorial Sea and Exclusive Economic Zone of the Republic of Equatorial Guinea, DOALOS, 5 October 1978, http://www.un.org/Depts/los/LEGISLATIONANDTREATIES/PDFFILES/GNQ_1984_Act.pdf; Cameroon, ‘Legislation’, DOALOS, http://www.un.org/Depts/los/LEGISLATIONANDTREATIES/STATEFILES/CMR.htm).

⁹⁸ Territorial and Maritime Dispute between Nicaragua and Honduras in the Caribbean Sea (Nicaragua v Honduras), Judgment [2007] ICJ Rep 659, [50]–[51].

⁹⁹ El Salvador/Honduras (n 2) [330].

¹⁰⁰ Nicaragua v Colombia (n 5); Act No 10 of 4 August 1978 Establishing Rules concerning the Territorial Sea, the Exclusive Economic Zone and the Continental Shelf and Regulating Other Matters, DOALOS, 4 August 1978, http://www.un.org/Depts/los/LEGISLATIONANDTREATIES/PDFFILES/COL_1978_Act.pdf; Act No 205 of 19 December 1979 on the Continental Shelf and Adjacent Sea, DOALOS, 19 December 1979, http://www.un.org/Depts/los/LEGISLATIONANDTREATIES/PDFFILES/NIC_1979_Act.pdf.

¹⁰¹ Maritime Delimitation in the Caribbean Sea and the Pacific Ocean (Costa Rica v Nicaragua) and Land Boundary in the Northern Part of Isla Portillos (Costa Rica v Nicaragua), Merits, Judgment [2018] ICJ Rep 1; Act No 205 (n 100); Article 6 of the Constitution as amended by Decree No 5699 of 5 June 1975, DOALOS, 5 June 1975, http://www.un.org/Depts/los/LEGISLATIONANDTREATIES/PDFFILES/CRI_1975_Decree5699.pdf.

¹⁰² For example, Maritime Delimitation in the Black Sea (Romania v Ukraine), Judgment [2009] ICJ Rep 61; Decree No 142 of 25 April 1986 of the Council of State concerning the Establishment of the Exclusive Economic Zone of the Socialist Republic of Romania in the Black Sea, DOALOS, 25 April 1986, http://www.un.org/Depts/los/LEGISLATIONANDTREATIES/PDFFILES/ROM_1986_Decree.pdf; Law of Ukraine on the Exclusive (Marine) Economic Zone of 16 May 1995, DOALOS, 16 May 1995, http://www.un.org/Depts/los/LEGISLATIONANDTREATIES/PDFFILES/UKR_1995_Law.pdf.

¹⁰³ Barbados/Trinidad and Tobago, PCA, Award of 11 April 2006, [47], [49].

¹⁰⁴ Guyana/Suriname, PCA, Award of 16 September 2007, [146].

¹⁰⁵ In the dispute between Peru and Chile, the ICJ did not address the fact that the Peruvian proclamation covered only the continental shelf and territorial waters, while Chile proclaimed sovereignty over the seas adjacent to its coasts up to 200 nm: Maritime Dispute (Peru v Chile), Judgment [2014] ICJ Rep 3, [37]–[38].

¹⁰⁶ For example, in the Bay of Bengal Maritime Boundary arbitration, the Tribunal addressed the legislation of Bangladesh but not that of India: The Bay of Bengal Maritime Boundary Arbitration (The People's Republic of Bangladesh/The Republic of India), PCA, Award of 7 July 2014, [429]. It is interesting that, with regard to the same party, the Arbitral Tribunal referred to the issue, while ITLOS did not.

¹⁰⁷ Delimitation of the Maritime Boundary in the Bay of Bengal (Bangladesh/Myanmar), Judgment, 14 March 2012, ITLOS Reports, 4.

¹⁰⁸ Barbados/Trinidad and Tobago (n 103) [224]–[225].

¹⁰⁹ ibid [231], [239]; see also Guyana/Suriname (n 104) [344]; the Tribunal acknowledged that the coast could be the basis for entitlement to maritime areas.

¹¹⁰ Based on the fact that the right of the coastal state to the EEZ is not inherent or intrinsic.

¹¹¹ Romania v Ukraine (n 102) [77].

¹¹² ibid; in Nicaragua v Colombia ((n 5) [145], [151], [155], [159]) the premise of the ‘overlapping entitlements’ repeats itself throughout the judgment.

¹¹³ Romania v Ukraine (n 102) [99]–[100].

¹¹⁴ ibid.

¹¹⁵ Bay of Bengal Maritime Boundary Arbitration (n 106) [287], [289], [299]. The parties referred to the term ‘conflict of entitlement’ with regard to determining the relevant coast (ibid [303]), but the Tribunal did not use this language.

¹¹⁶ ibid, concurring and dissenting opinion of Dr PS Rao, [31].

¹¹⁷ Peru v Chile (n 105) [112]–[115].

¹¹⁸ ibid [112]–[113], [116]

¹¹⁹ ibid, separate partly concurring and partly dissenting opinion of Judge Ad Hoc Orrego Vicuña, [9]–[10].

¹²⁰ Costa Rica v Nicaragua (n 101).

¹²¹ ibid [115], [117], [179]; Nicaragua v Colombia (n 5) [159], [163].

¹²² Costa Rica v Nicaragua (n 101) [117].

¹²³ ibid [184].

¹²⁴ 1951 Fisheries Case (UK v Norway) (n 55) 132; 1974 Fisheries Jurisdiction (Germany v Iceland) (n 18) [41].

¹²⁵ 1974 Fisheries Jurisdiction (UK v Iceland) (n 55) 154–55, dissenting opinion of Judge Petrén.

¹²⁶ ibid.

¹²⁷ See also 1974 Fisheries Jurisdiction (Germany v Iceland) (n 18) joint separate opinion by Judges Forster, Bengzon, Jiménez De Aréchaga, Nagendra Singh and Ruda, [9]–[10], [12].

¹²⁸ Libya/Malta (n 49) [33].

¹²⁹ Another example of such distinction between entitlement and delimitation can be found in El Salvador/Honduras (n 2) separate opinion of Judge Torres-Bernárdez, [183].

¹³⁰ Maritime Delimitation – Greenland and Jan Mayen (n 93) [20]–[34], [47].

¹³¹ ibid [59]; North Sea Continental Shelf (n 6) [57], [101(c)1].

¹³² Maritime Delimitation – Greenland and Jan Mayen (n 93) separate opinion of Vice-President Oda, [46].

¹³³ ibid, separate opinion of Judge Shahabuddeen, 160; separate opinion of Judge Ajibola, 289–90; and separate opinion of Judge Fischer, [9]–[10]. See also Libya/Malta (n 49) [27].

¹³⁴ Maritime Delimitation – Greenland and Jan Mayen (n 93) 160, separate opinion of Judge Shahabuddeen (quoting also Libya/Malta (n 49) [27], [34]), and separate opinion of Judge Mbaye.

¹³⁵ Maritime Delimitation – Greenland and Jan Mayen (n 93) 174, separate opinion of Judge Shahabuddeen (this is similar to Libya/Malta (n 49) [33]).

¹³⁶ See, for example, Qatar v Bahrain (n 97). The ICJ examined only the issue of delimitation, even though one party had not proclaimed an EEZ or a fishery zone at all: Bahrain (n 97); Qatar Declaration (n 97). Another example is Cameroon/Nigeria (n 97): the ICJ gave judgment on delimitation of the maritime zones, despite the fact that neither party had established entitlement to the zones; Cameroon did not proclaim an EEZ (n 97). See also the 2014 Peru v Chile case, where the ICJ examined the possibility of an agreed maritime boundary, which is the question of delimitation, rather than analysing the legal source of entitlement to the maritime zones in question. This was the first occasion on which there was reference to the treaty as an instrument for creating entitlement, but there is no examination of that question in depth: Peru v Chile (n 105) [18]–[24], [28]. However, there is a brief reference to the establishment of jurisdiction over the zones: ibid [62], [102]; see also separate opinion of Judge Owada, [5], and declaration of Judge Skotnikov, [4].

¹³⁷ Romania v Ukraine (n 102) [99]–[100].

¹³⁸ Nicaragua v Colombia (n 5) [145], [155], [159]. See also Peru v Chile (n 105) [181], [189]–[190].

¹³⁹ Costa Rica v Nicaragua (n 101) [115], [184]; Nicaragua v Colombia (n 5) [159].

¹⁴⁰ Barbados/Trinidad and Tobago (n 103) [224]–[225].

¹⁴¹ Guyana/Suriname (n 104) [330].

¹⁴² Bangladesh/Myanmar (n 107) [292]; Bangladesh/India (n 106) [57], [190], [312] onwards; see also [402], [405].

¹⁴³ Less than 400 nm between the parties’ coasts.

¹⁴⁴ UNCLOS (n 1) arts 74, 83.

¹⁴⁵ See clarification in the Gulf of Maine case (n 73).

¹⁴⁶ 1974 Fisheries Jurisdiction (Germany v Iceland) (n 18) [54].

¹⁴⁷ ibid [54], [63].

¹⁴⁸ ibid [60]; 1974 Fisheries Jurisdiction (UK v Iceland) (n 55) [68].

¹⁴⁹ 1974 Fisheries Jurisdiction (Germany v Iceland) (n 18) [63].

¹⁵⁰ Tunisia/Libya (n 52) dissenting opinion of Judge Oda, [152].

¹⁵¹ See also opinion of Judge Torres-Bernárdez, which recognised that each party has an entitlement to maritime areas that is independent of the entitlement of other coastal states: El Salvador/Honduras (n 2) separate opinion of Judge Torres-Bernárdez, [183].

¹⁵² In Gulf of Maine (n 73) the 1985 Libya/Malta case (n 49) and Nicaragua/Honduras (n 98) the ICJ did not mention the concept of overlapping entitlements at all.

¹⁵³ In El Salvador/Honduras (n 2) the ICJ referred to an ‘overlap of titles’, mostly for the purpose of analysing Honduras's claim over the issue, as well as in some of its conclusions: eg, ibid [78], [81], [131], [297], [299]; for a different view see the opinion of Judge Torres-Bernárdez (n 151).

¹⁵⁴ Maritime Delimitation – Greenland and Jan Mayen (n 93) 59.

¹⁵⁵ ibid, separate opinion of Vice-President Oda, [46]. It is interesting to note that in Tunisia/Libya (n 52) Vice-President Oda recognised that Tunisia and Libya were each entitled to claim any area within a 200 nm radius, regardless of the need to delimit the zone between them: dissenting opinion of Judge Oda, [52].

¹⁵⁶ Maritime Delimitation – Greenland and Jan Mayen (n 93) separate opinion of Judge Fischer, [9].

¹⁵⁷ As mentioned above, earlier judgments and opinions recognised the fact that multiple entitlements in the same area do not nullify one another: see 1974 Fisheries Jurisdiction (Germany v Iceland) (n 18) [54], [60], [63]; 1974 Fisheries Jurisdiction (UK v Iceland) (n 55) [68]; Tunisia/Libya (n 52) dissenting opinion of Judge Oda; Gulf of Maine (n 73); El Salvador/Honduras (n 2) separate opinion of Judge Torres-Bernárdez, [9].

¹⁵⁸ Maritime Delimitation – Greenland and Jan Mayen (n 93) [80]; Gulf of Maine (n 73) [103].

¹⁵⁹ Though it should be mentioned that in Qatar/Bahrain (n 97) and in Cameroon/Nigeria (n 97) the ICJ made no reference to this notion, while in the Guyana/Suriname arbitration ((n 104) [228]) Suriname put forward an argument referring to ‘the area of overlapping maritime entitlements’, although the Tribunal itself did not use this language.

¹⁶⁰ Romania v Ukraine (n 102) [99]–[100].

¹⁶¹ Maritime Delimitation – Greenland and Jan Mayen (n 93) separate opinion of Judge Fischer, [9], and the discussion above.

¹⁶² Costa Rica v Nicaragua (n 101) [115], [179], [184]; see also Nicaragua v Colombia (n 5) eg [145], [151], [155], [159], [163]; and Peru v Chile (n 105) [181], [189]–[190].

¹⁶³ In the 2012 Nicaragua/Colombia case the ICJ determined that the absence of entitlement to a particular area can stem from an agreement with a third state or because that area lies beyond a judicially determined boundary between that party and a third state. In such cases, that area is excluded from the present proceedings: Nicaragua v Colombia (n 5) [163]; Costa Rica v Nicaragua (n 101) [117], and declaration of Judge Tomka, [4]; Romania v Ukraine (n 102) [201].

¹⁶⁴ Costa Rica v Nicaragua (n 101) [117], and declaration of Judge Tomka, [4]; Maritime Delimitation in the Black Sea (Romania v Ukraine) (n 102) [201].

¹⁶⁵ Costa Rica v Nicaragua (n 101) declaration of Judge Tomka, [6]–[7].

¹⁶⁶ UNCLOS (n 1) arts 74, 83.

¹⁶⁷ Bangladesh/Myanmar (n 107) [292].

¹⁶⁸ Bangladesh v India (n 106). It should be noted that in an earlier case the Arbitral Tribunal repeated the notion of overlapping entitlements: Barbados/Trinidad and Tobago (n 103) [227].

¹⁶⁹ Romania v Ukraine (n 102) [99]–[100]; Bay of Bengal Maritime Boundary Arbitration (n 106) [287], [289], [299], see also n 115.

¹⁷⁰ Bangladesh/ India (n 106) [402], [405], [408]; Bangladesh/Myanmar (n 107) [292].

¹⁷¹ Bangladesh/India (n 106) [417]–[418].

¹⁷² Romania v Ukraine (n 102) [61].

¹⁷³ 1974 Fisheries Jurisdiction (Germany v Iceland) (n 18) [49].

¹⁷⁴ See the analysis in Leonardo Bernard, ‘The Effect of Historic Fishing Rights in Maritime Boundaries Delimitation’, papers from the Law of the Sea Institute, UC Berkeley–Korea Institute of Ocean Science and Technology Conference, held in Seoul (Korea), May 2012, https://www.law.berkeley.edu/files/Bernard-final.pdf (although Bernard sees ‘relevant circumstances’ as relating to ‘historic fishing rights’ rather than ‘historic waters’).

¹⁷⁵ For example, in Bangladesh/Myanmar (n 107); Nicaragua/Colombia (n 5); and Peru v Chile (n 105).

¹⁷⁶ 1974 Fisheries Jurisdiction (Germany v Iceland) (n 18) [49].

¹⁷⁷ Tunisia/Libya (n 52) [25]; North Sea Continental Shelf (n 6).

¹⁷⁸ Tunisia/Libya (n 52) [82].

¹⁷⁹ ibid [106]–[107], [118]. However, in the 1984 Gulf of Maine case, Judge Gros argued to the contrary, stating that as the basis of the entitlement is the wish to extend jurisdiction, economic dependency can no longer be a determining factor or a relevant circumstance: Gulf of Maine (n 73) dissenting opinion of Judge Gros, [17].

¹⁸⁰ Libya/Malta (n 49) [33], [50].

¹⁸¹ Maritime Delimitation – Greenland and Jan Mayen (n 93) [72]–[75].

¹⁸² ibid [76].

¹⁸³ Qatar v Bahrain (n 97) [236].

¹⁸⁴ Tunisia/Libya (n 52) [118].

¹⁸⁵ Cameroon/Nigeria (n 97) [303]–[304]; Romania v Ukraine (n 102) [198]; Nicaragua v Colombia (n 5) [223].

¹⁸⁶ Barbados/Trinidad and Tobago (n 103) [239].

¹⁸⁷ ibid [266]–[270]; Guyana/Suriname (n 104) [390], [392].

¹⁸⁸ Bangladesh/India (n 106) [423]–[424].

¹⁸⁹ Nicaragua v Honduras (n 98) [126].

¹⁹⁰ North Sea Continental Shelf (n 6) [96].

¹⁹¹ Romania v Ukraine (n 102) [77]; North Sea Continental Shelf (n 6) [96].

¹⁹² See also Bangladesh/Myanmar (n 107) [185]; Nicaragua v Colombia (n 5) [140].

¹⁹³ Peru v Chile (n 105).

¹⁹⁴ See n 7 and n 13.

¹⁹⁵ Tunisia/Libya (n 52) separate opinion of Judge Jiménez De Aréchaga, [53]–[54], and dissenting opinion of Judge Evensen, [7]–[8].

¹⁹⁶ Barbados/Trinidad and Tobago (n 103) [224]–[225], [231], [239].

¹⁹⁷ See clarification in Gulf of Maine (n 73).

¹⁹⁸ See, for example, Andreone (n 5) 159–60.

¹⁹⁹ See discussion in Section 3 above.

²⁰⁰ See examples in Section 2.1 and the discussion in the Introduction.

²⁰¹ See, for example, Madagascar, Legislation, Ordinance No 85-013 Determining the Limits of the Maritime Zones (Territorial Sea, Continental Shelf and Exclusive Economic Zone) of the Democratic Republic of Madagascar, 16 September 1985, as Amended and Ratified by Law No 85-013 of 11 December 1985, DOALOS, 11 December 1985, http://www.un.org/Depts/los/LEGISLATIONANDTREATIES/PDFFILES/MDG_1985_Ordinance.pdf; China's Exclusive Economic Zone (n 25); Proclamation of the Exclusive Economic Zone by the Republic of Cyprus (n 28); Lebanon, Decree No 6433 (n 32); Exclusive Economic Zone of the Russian Federation (n 36).