Abstract

This article examines the development of case law concerning the criteria determining the relevant coasts and the relevant areas in delimitation of the exclusive economic zone and continental shelf. There is a discrepancy in the jurisprudence over whether the relevant area is determined by assessing the overlaps of “seaward extension,” “projections,” or “potential entitlement,” and this undermines the transparency of the process and the predictability of the result. There is also a debate over whether identification of the relevant area shall be based on “frontal” or “radial” projections. This article tracks this jurisprudence, questions why there is a discrepancy, and critically analyzes the consequences of these decisions in the light of the principle of equity.

摘要

本文探讨了判例法的发展，该判例法涉及确定专属经济区和大陆架划界的相关海岸和相关区域的标准。在判别相关领域是否通过评估“航海扩展”，“投影”或“潜在权利”的重叠来确定的判例上存在差异，这有损于过程的透明度和结果的可预测性。关于确定相关区域是否应基于“正面”或“径向”预测也存在争议。本文跟踪该判例，质疑为什么存在差异，并根据公平原则批判性地分析这些决定的后果。