AbstractOn 12 October 2021, the International Court of Justice (ICJ or Court) issued its judgment on the merits in Maritime Delimitation in the Indian Ocean (Somalia v. Kenya). The judgment raises questions of significance in respect of two issues upon which this comment elaborates. First, the Court failed to distinguish adequately between the notions of acquiescence and tacit agreement, which were at the basis of Kenya’s claim for an agreed boundary running along a parallel of latitude. Second, in drawing the boundary as requested by Somalia, the Court departed from its usual approach concerning the adjustment of the provisional equidistance line established in the first stage of its three-stage delimitation process.

中文翻译：

---

如何复杂化一个简单的案例：印度洋海洋划界案情的裁判（索马里诉肯尼亚）

摘要 2021 年 10 月 12 日，国际法院（ICJ 或法院）就印度洋海洋划界案（索马里诉肯尼亚）案情实质作出判决。该判决就本评论阐述的两个问题提出了重要问题。首先，法院未能充分区分默认和默许的概念，这是肯尼亚主张沿纬度平行的商定边界的基础。其次，在按照索马里的要求绘制边界时，法院在调整其三阶段划界程序第一阶段确定的临时等距线时，偏离了惯常做法。