Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-8bhkd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-18T21:58:42.455Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Barbados/Trinidad and Tobago. Award on Jurisdiction and Merits

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 February 2017

Daniel Bodansky  and
Barbara Kwiatkowska
Barbara Kwiatkowska
Affiliation:
Netherlands Institute for the Law of the Sea
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Barbados/Trinidad and Tobago. Award on Jurisdiction and Merits. At <http://www.pca-cpa.org/ENGLISH/RPC/>, available at 45 ILM 800 (2006).

UN Convention on the Law of the Sea Annex VII Arbitral Tribunal, April 11, 2006.

The dispute addressed in the Barbados/Trinidad and Tobago arbitration emerged during nine rounds of negotiations concerning delimitation of die maritime boundary in the western, central, and eastern sectors of their overlapping claims to the continental shelf and 200-mile exclusive economic zone (EEZ) in the Caribbean Sea (five rounds), along with associated questions posed by the continuing access for Barbadian fisherfolk to flying fish stocks south of a prospective equidistance line in the western sector (four rounds). In February 2004, according to Barbados, the prime minister of Trinidad and Tobago declared the issue of the maritime boundary “intractable” (para. 56) and invited Barbados to proceed, if it so wished, with arbitration. Barbados then invoked the compulsory arbitration provisions of Part XV, Section 2, of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (LOS Convention). Upon its establishment, the Annex VII Barbados/Trinidad and Tobago Arbitral Tribunal [Tribunal], which comprised President Stephen M. Schwebel and arbitrators Ian Brownlie, Vaughan A. Lowe, Francisco Orrego Vicuña, and Sir Arthur Watts, adopted its Rules of Procedure and issued four orders by year's end. After joining Trinidad and Tobago's preliminary objections to the merits phase, the Tribunal held hearings in London on October 17-28,2005. The vital interests of the two states in valuable oil and fishery resources were reflected in the high intensity of the factual and legal (both procedural and substantive) contentions forcefully disputed by the parties as represented by leading international counsel, and a number of procedurally incidental issues arose in the context of the proceedings’ confidentiality and the treatment of evidence.

Type
International Decisions
Information
American Journal of International Law , Volume 101 , Issue 1 , January 2007 , pp. 149 - 157
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of International Law 2007

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Since neither of the parties had made a declaration under Article 287 of the Law of the Sea Convention, they were deemed to have accepted, pursuant to the Riphagen clause of Article 287(3), arbitration in accordance with Annex VII. See UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, opened for signature Dec. 10, 1982, 1833 UNTS 397, reprinted in 21 ILM 1261 (1982) (entered into force Nov.16, 1994) [hereinafter LOS Convention], available at <http://www.un.org/Depts/los/> (unless otherwise noted, references to article numbers in this case report refer to the LOS Convention). On the prospective U.S. choice of Annex VII arbitration, see Message from the U.S. President to the Senate with Commentary of Oct.7, 1994, 34 ILM 1393, 1399 (1995), and The Law of the Sea Convention and U.S Policy 8, 13–14 (Aug.4, 2005), at <http://www.ncseonline.org/NLE/CRSreports/05aug/IB95010.pdf>. See also Roundtable Discussion: Should the United States Join the Convention? If Not, Why Not? If So, What Are the Prospects? (Washington, D.C., Oct. 24, 2006)Google Scholar (chaired by former International Court of Justice (ICJ) President Stephen M. Schwebel at the American Society of International Law “Symposium in Remembrance of Louis B. Sohn”). The proceedings of the symposium, whose program is available at <http://www.asil.org/pdfs/sohnprograml.pdf>, will be published in 2007 by the George Washington International Law Review. See generally Bernard H., Oxman, The Territorial Temptation: A Siren Song at Sea, 100 AJIL 830 (2006)Google Scholar.

2 On such joinder occurring in ICJ cases involving reasonable probability of upholding jurisdiction, see Hearings Day 1 (Oct. 17, 2005), infra note 3, at 22–23 (Counsel Sir Elihu Lauterpacht), and, for example, Arrest Warrant of 11 April 2000 (Dem. Rep. Congo v. Belg.), 2002 ICJ Rep. 3 (Feb.14).

3 The Tribunal’s Rules and and Order Nos. 1–4 were promptly posted on the Web site of the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA), <http://www.pca–cpa.org/ENGLISH/RPC/>, which agreed to serve as registrar. After the Tribunal delivered its award in Barbados/Trinidad and Tobago, Jurisdiction and Merits (UN Law of the Sea Annex VII Arb. Trib. Apr. 11, 2006), 45 ILM 800 (2006) [hereinafter Award], the written pleadings (memorial, countermemorial, reply, and rejoinder) and the transcripts of the hearings (Oct. 17–28, 2005) [hereinafter Hearings Days 1–8], as well as the Award itself, have also been posted at the PCA Web site. This public access to the legal record of interstate arbitral proceedings is unprecedented in cases involving boundary delimitation. On the previously established precedent of immediate public access to all pleadings in the inaugural Annex VII arbitration in Southern Bluefin Tuna, 39 ILM 1359 (2000), as also allowed in the next Annex VII environmentally focused cases, see Barbara, Kwiatkowska, Case Report: Southern Bluefin Tuna (Australia and New Zealand v. Japan), Jurisdiction and Admissibility, 95 AJIL 162 (2001)Google Scholar. The 2006 Award has been summarized in Oceans and the Law of the Sea: Report of the Secretary–General, paras. 175–76 (2006), UN Doc.A/61/63/Add.1, at <http://www.un.org/Depts/los>, and in Tanaka, Y., Case Report: Barbados/Trinidad and Tobago Award, 21 Int’l Marine, J. & Coastal, L. 523 (2006)Google Scholar. For a comprehensive analysis, see Kwiatkowska, B., The 2006Barbados/Trinidad and Tobago Award: A Landmark in Compulsory Jurisdiction and Equitable Maritime Boundary Delimitation, 22 Int’l Marine, J. & Coastal, L. (2007, in press)Google Scholar.

4 See Award, supra note 3, paras. 10, 349, noting dismissal (pursuant to practice of not allowing intervention in arbitrations) of Guyana’s request for access to the then confidential written pleadings; Award, paras. 11–18, 106, Barbados’s Memorial (paras. 89–91), Trinidad’s Rejoinder (paras. 171–80), and the Tribunal’s Order Nos. 2–4 (referring to “self–help” of Barbados with respect to Trinidad’s four oil blocks); Award, paras. 21–28, 53, 110–13, and Trinidad’s Rejoinder (paras. 11–28) (referring to controversies over the admissibility of the “Joint Reports”); Award, paras. 32–36, and Hearings Day 5 (Oct. 24, 2005), supra note 3, at 33–34 (Co–agent Robert Volterra) (concerning submission by both parties of supplementary evidence); Award, para. 39 (quoting the president’s Statement on Confidentiality), and Hearings Day 5 (Oct. 24, 2005), at 4–6 (Volterra), 36 (President Schwebel), 71–72 (Volterra).

5 The Tribunal refers here to the list of pertinent points set forth in paragraph 382 and the technical report of the Tribunal’s hydrographer, D. H. Gray, attached to the Award.

6 On the Award’s use of the term “outer continental shelf,” which the Tribunal preferred over “extended continental shelf,” or “ECS,” used by the parties, see para. 65 n.4 and Hearings Day 4 (Oct. 21, 2005), supra note 3, at 91 (Counsel James Crawford).

7 See also infra text accompanying note 16.

8 These holdings provide an important clarification of the hotly debated issue concerning the range of agreements falling within the ambit of Article 281. See, e.g., Kwiatkowska, Case Report, supra note 3, at 166–71; B. Kwiatkowska, The Southern Bluefin Tuna Arbitral Tribunal Did Get It Right: A Reply to David A., Colson and Peggy, Hoyle, 34 Ocean Dev. & Int’l L. 369 (2003)Google Scholar; Kwiatkowska, The 2006 Barbados/Trinidad and Tobago Award, supra note 3.

9 See Award, supra note 3, paras. 69 (esp. ITLOS jurisprudence quoted therein), 201–08; Southern Bluefin Tuna, para. 55; Barbados’s Reply, paras. 91 n.184, 101 n.198; Hearings Day 1 (Oct. 17, 2005), supra note 3, at 66–79 ( esp. 76) (Counsel W. Michael Reisman); Hearings Day 5 (Oct. 24, 2005), at 8 (Reisman); see also Award, paras. 70, 198 (referring to Barbados’s characterization of Trinidad’s approach (a characterization rejected by the Tribunal) as “idiosyncratic,” “formalistic,” and, in the terms of the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (Art. 32), “manifestly absurd or unreasonable”).

10 See Award, supra note 3, paras. 71, 75–77, 201–02, 205–06; Hearings Day 7 (Oct. 27, 2005), supra note 3, at 17–18, 50 (questions of Judge Sir Arthur Watts), 45–64 (Counsel Samuel Wordsworth); Award, para. 207 (rightly rejecting argument based on reference to “the States concerned” in the plural in Articles 74(2) and 83(2), as relied upon in Trinidad’s Rejoinder, para. 40(2), and as countered by Reisman, supra note 9).

11 See Award, supra note 3, paras. 63–65, Map II, paras. 80–87 (quoting in para. 82 the award in Delimitation of Maritime Areas Between Canada and the French Republic (St. Pierre and Miquelon) (Can./Fr.), paras. 75–82, 31 ILM 1145, 1197 (1992)), Map III, paras. 174–87, 189–90, 196, 213–15, 217, 367–68, 384(ii); Trinidad’s Counter–memorial, paras. 265–69, 287–88; Barbados’s Reply, paras. 125–145; Trinidad’s Rejoinder, paras. 157, 219; Hearings Day 1 (Oct. 17, 2005), supra note 3, at 85–87 (Counsel Reisman), 94–95, 105 (Co–agent Volterra); Hearings Day 4 (Oct. 21, 2005), at 77–87 (Counsel Christopher Greenwood), 88–109 (Counsel Crawford); Hearings Day 6 (Oct. 25, 2005), at 39–49 (Reisman); Hearings Day 8 (Oct. 28, 2005), at 32–59 (Crawford); supra note 6; infra notes 18–21. On preparation of Barbados’s Submission to the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf [CLCS], see Award, Map II, paras. 103, 157, Hearings Day 1 (Oct. 17, 2005), at 94–95, 105 (Volterra), Hearings Day 5 (Oct. 24, 2005), at 27–29 (Volterra), and the CLCS Web site, <http://www.un.org/Depts/los/clcs_new/clcs_home.htm>.

12 See Trinidad and Tobago’s Counter–memorial, paras. 4–7 , quoting Maritime Delimitation in the Area Between Greenland and Jan Mayen (Den. v. Nor), Sep. Op. Schwebel, J., 1993 ICJ Rep. 38, 126–127 (June 14), as supported by, for example, Churchill, R. R., The Greenland–Jan Mayen Case and Its Significance, 9 Int’l Marine, J. & Coastal, L. 1, 26 (1994)Google Scholar. On Trinidad’s “maximalist claim,” see infra note 18 and accompanying text.

13 Reaffirming Maritime Delimitation and Territorial Questions Between Qatar and Bahrain (Qatar v. Bahrain), 2001 ICJ Rep. 94, paras. 176, 217, 230 (Mar. 16), and Land and Maritime Boundary Between Cameroon and Nigeria (Cameroon v. Nig.; Eq. Guinea Intervening), 2002 ICJ Rep. 303, paras. 288–90 (Oct. 10).

14 See Hearings Day 2 (Oct. 18, 2005), supra note 3, at 21–29 (Counsel Reisman) (noting at 25 that while Tribunal’s President Schwebel was critical of the former option in his separate opinion in Jan Mayen, he concurred in the unanimous perpetuation of the traditional fishing regime in the 1998 Eritrea/Yemen Phase I award (Territorial Sovereignty and Scope of the Dispute), paras. 525–26, 527 (vi), as clarified in the 1999 Eritrea/Yemen Phase II award (Maritime Delimitation), paras. 62–69, 87–112). Both Eritrea/Yemen awards, discussed in case reports by W. Michael Reisman at 93 AJIL 668 (1999) and 94 AJIL 721 (2000), are available at <http://www.pca–cpa.org> and at 40 ILM 900 & 983 (2001).

15 The Tribunal quotes, Award, supra note 3, para. 241, the exception of Delimitation of the Maritime Boundary in the Gulf of Maine Area (Can./U.S), 1984 ICJ REP. 342, para. 237 (Oct.12)). The Tribunal, Award, paras. 277–83, rejects, inter alia, the Eritrea/Yemen awards, the Western Sahara advisory opinion, 1975 ICJ Rep. 12 (Oct. 16), and the 2002 Eritrea/Ethiopia Boundary decision and demarcation determinations, 41 ILM 1057 (2002), see UN Doc. S/2007/33, at <http://www.pca–cpa.org>, as precedents for granting Barbados fishery access by means of a remedy infra petita in the present case. See Kwiatkowska, B., Resource, Navigational and Environmental Factors, in International Maritime Boundaries 3223, 3231–35 (David A., Colson & Robert W., Smith eds., 2005)Google Scholar.

16 The Tribunal supports its reliance on the agents’ commitments by numerous judicial precedents. Award, supra note 3, para. 291 nn.26–27; see also supra note 7 and accompanying text.

17 See Award, supra note 3, paras. 106 (quoting Land and Maritime Boundary Between Cameroon and Nigeria, para. 304), 361–66.

18 See Hearings Day 6 (Oct. 25, 2005), supra note 3, at 17–31 (Counsel Jan Paulsson), 54–57 (Counsel Lauterpacht), implying that were the Tribunal to adopt this approach, effectively allowing Trinidad’s outer continental shelf beyond 200 miles to trump Barbados’s EEZ, the Award would amount to dispute stimulation instead of dispute resolution. See analysis of “unworkable” EEZ/outer continental shelf overlap in Kwiatkowska, The 2006Barbados/Trinidad and Tobago Award, supra note 3. Note that France abandoned in early 2006 the extension of its outer continental shelf off Saint Pierre et Miquelon (called by France “a discontinued juridical shelf) by “leapfrogging” over Canada’s EEZ. In addition to the 1992 award in Delimitation of Maritime Areas Between Canada and the French Republic, see France’s Submission to the CLCS, at <http://www.extraplac.fr/FR/extensions/geographie.php> and the BBC interview of March 8, 2006, at <http://news.bbc.co.Uk/1/hi/programmes/crossing_continents/4781886.stm>.

19 See Hearings Day 8 (Oct. 28, 2005), supra note. 3, at 16–17 (Judge Brownlie’s question, with Counsel Crawford reply); see also Hearings Day 7 (Oct. 27, 2005), at 32 (President Schwebel’s question), 32–33 (Counsel Greenwood reply), Hearings Day 8 (Oct. 28, 2005), at 29–31 (Crawford reply to same question).

20 On the 1990 Trinidad and Tobago/Venezuela Treaty on the Delimitation of Marine and Submarine Areas, 1654 UNTS 293 & 614, as establishing the southern limit of Trinidad and Tobago’s entitlement to maritime areas, see Award, supra note 3, paras. 51, 164, 168, Map III, paras. 345–48, 371, 374. The Tribunal also notes, paras. 345–46 —in the context of a northward (that is, adverse to Trinidad) shift in the equidistance line under that Treaty— that Barbados cannot be required to “compensate” Trinidad and Tobago for its agreed boundary with Venezuela. On that boundary appearing to be based upon the assumption that disputed Esequibo land belongs to Venezuela and not to Guyana, see Hearings Day 6 (Oct. 25, 2005), supra note 3, at 14–15 (President Schwebel’s question, with Co–agent Volterra reply), Hearings Day 8 (Oct. 28, 2005), at 132–133 (Agent John Jeremie), and UN Guyana/Venezuela mediations of September 29, 2003, see <http://www.un.org/News/briefings/docs/2003/db092903.doc.htm>, and of January 26, 2007, see <http://www.un.org/apps/sg/sgstats.asp?nid=2421>, <http://www.mre.gov.ve/Esequibo>.

21 On the 8.2:1 ratio of eastward–facing coastal frontages of Trinidad and Tobago versus Barbados (74.9 versus 9.2 miles, respectively), see Award, supra note 3, paras. 159, 326, and Hearings Day 1 (Oct. 17, 2005), supra note 3, at 30 (Counsel Lauterpacht).

22 In all statements issued upon the delivery of the well–balanced Award, Barbados and Trinidad and Tobago (each claiming victory for itself) commended the maritime boundary and hoped for the conclusion of a new fisheries agreement, see, for example, press comments at <http://www.caribbeannetnews.com/cgi–script/csArticles/articles/000012/001253.htm> (Apr. 13, 2006), <http://www.barbadosadvocate.com/NewViewNewsleft.cfm?Record=25617> (Apr. 26, 2006), and <http://www.barbadosadvocate.com/NewViewNewsleft.cfm?Record=26599> (June 29, 2006).

23 For example, Belize/Guatemala (Organization of American States), at <http://oas.org/documents/eng/belizeguatemala.asp>, <http://belize–guatemala.gov.bz> Guyana/Venezuela (UN secretary–general), supra note 20; GuyanalSuriname, Jurisdiction and Merits (LOS Convention Annex VII), at http://www.pca–cpa.org; and Venezuela (Aves Island)/Eastern Caribbean States (referred to in Hearings Day 6 (Oct. 25, 2005), supra note 3, at 16 (Coagent Volterra), 68–9 (Agent Mia Mottley). Hearings Day 7 (Oct. 27, 2005), at 27–28 (Counsel Greenwood), Hearings Day 8 (Oct. 28, 2005), at 26 (Counsel Crawford), 133 (Agent Jeremie)).