PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW | B2015

CASE DIGESTS
ERITEA V. YEMEN
October 9, 1998
Judges Stephen M. Schwebel, Rosalyn Higgins, Dr. h!ed S. "l#$osheri, $eith
Highet
Sir Robert %. Jennings, &residing
Ra'eses, Roberto Miguel O.
()he case is in article *or!at. )he regular digest *or!at is, there*ore, inapplicable.
(( &lease re*er to the +uoted pro,isions and bloc- +uotes ha,e not been included.
&ages o* such +uotes in the original were indicated instead *or easy re*erence.
The Controversy
In an Agreement on Principles of May 21, 1996, Eritea and Yemen
agreed to renounce te use of force against eac oter and to settle teir
dispute on !uestions of territorial so"ereignty and of delimitation of
maritime #orders peacefully$
%e agreement implemented a t&o'stage process contemplated in te
agreement on principles$
1$ FIRST STAGE %e tri#unal &as to decide territorial
so"ereignty (o"er te disputed islands in te )ed *ea+, in
accordance &it te principles, rules and practice of Int,l la&
applica#le to te matter, and on te #asis, in particular, of istoric
titles$
2$ SECOND STAGE %e tri#unal &as to issue an a&ard
delimiting maritime #oundaries - ta.ing into account te opinion
tat it &ill a"e formed on !uestions of territorial so"ereignty, te
(/0123*+, and any oter pertinent factor$
.hile the te/t is e/tre!ely thorough, it is also a *rustrating docu!ent0
1$ 4ritten #y many ands suc tat its components and teories are
internally inconsistent$
2$ %e #ul. of te a&ard &ic re"ie&s te parties, su#missions is
dismissi"e of teir e"idence 5"oluminous in caracter #ut-
sparse in useful content, according to te tri#unal6$
a$ *uc paucity, according to te %ri#unal, may a"e #een
due to te fact tat te disputed isands are uniformly
attracti"e, unattracti"e, &aterless, and a#ita#le only &it
great difficulty$
#$ 7urtermore, #ot states &ere in ci"il &ars during te
ar#itration proceedings$
%e parties ac.no&ledged 5and te %ri#unal accepted6 tat te 3ttoman
Empire ad title to te islands$
1$ 8o& te 3smanlis secured and maintained title are not specified,
presuma#ly tey &ere neiter #y succession nor effecti"e
occupation$
Eritea claimed territorial so"ereignty o"er all te islands #y "irtue of Italian
so"ereignty$
1$ It &as ac!uired #y effecti"e occupation sometime after %ur.is
renunciation$
2$ Italian title &as transferred to Etiopia and, upon its accession to
independence in 1999, Eritea succeeded to it$
%emen #ased its claim on original, istoric or traditional Yemeni title,
from te 6
t
century$
1$ %title &as recogni:ed #y Yemen,s integration into te 3ttoman
Empire and re"erted; to Yemen upon te empire,s demise$
<ot Eritea and Yemen adduced e"idence of more recent demonstrations of
so"ereignty, including Petroleum e=ploration agreements and so"ereignty$
Eritea contended tat te scope of te dispute included te nortern islands
of >a#al al'%ayr and te ?u#ayr group$ Yemen disagreed, so Art$ 2526 of te
Ar#itration agreement re!uested te %ri#unal to resol"e te dispute$
1$ %e %ri#unal too. note of te possi#le discrepancy #et&een te
agreement on principles and te ar#itration agreement 5in &ic
case te latter &ould pre"ail6$
2$ 8o&e"er, it relied on te final sentence of Art$ 2526 of te
ar#itration agreement; %e %ri#unal sall decide on te definition
of te scope of te dispute on te #asis of te respecti"e positions
of te t&o Parties$
a$ It eld tat all islands came &itin te scope of te
dispute, reasoning tat te parties, positions at te time of
te ar#itration agreement sould form te #asis for te
determination #y te tri#unal of te scope of te dispute$
#$ )his, according to the author, is a curiously passi,e
posture with respect to the !atter in dispute.
i$ %e competence assigned to te %ri#unal to
ma.e te decision &as surrendered to te
#roadest su#mission of one of te parties, for, in
PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW | B2015
CASE DIGESTS
te nature of te situation, te oter party &ill
al&ays a"e to defend against it, if only for a
special or conditional #asis$
In response to Yemen,s in"ocation of te doctrine of uti possidetis, te
%ri#unal &a"ered, dou#ting te la&, #ut gi"ing some effect to 3ttoman
allocations of @urisdiction$
1$ %e factual predicate for te application of uti possidetis &as a
clear source of &ere te administrati"e #oundaries of te 3ttoman
Empire &ere located, &ic &as te !uestion at #ar$
2$ 4ile s.irting te !uestion &eter te doctrine of uti possidetis,
at te time tougt of as essentially one applica#le to 2atin
America, could properly #e applied to interpret a @uridical !uestion
arising in te Middle East sortly after te close of (44I+, )he
)ribunal see!ed to apply a type o* uti possidetis when it *ound that
e"en &en te &ole region &as under 3ttoman rule it &ould &as
assumed tat te po&ers of @urisdiction and administration o"er te
islands sould #e di"ided #et&een te t&o opposite coasts$
)he )ribunal was rather de*ensi,e with respect to the in*or!ation 1t had
solicited regarding petroleu! agree!ents and e/plorations underta-en
under the auspices o* the respecti,e parties.
1$ Yemen contended tat it &as not rele"ant in te first pase of te
ar#itration and e=pressed concern tat it &as #eing used to
prefigure- a median line$
a$ %e %ri#unal assured te parties tat no mem#er of te
of te %ri#unal ad mentioned e!uity or e!uita#le
principles$
i$ As a general matter, o&e"er, it stated tat it
could not accept te proposition tat te int,l
la& go"erning land territory and te int,l la&
go"erning maritime #oundaries are not only
different #ut also discrete and #ear no @uridical
rele"ance to eac oter$
ii$ %e %ri#unal insisted still tat tere could not #e
any !uestion of dra&ing any maritime #oundary
line #ased on e!uita#le principles in te
ar#itration,s first stage$
%e %ri#unal re@ected Yemen,s argument for a re"ersion of title on te #asis
of la& and facts$
1$ Yemen ad not esta#lised tat te doctrine &as part of
international la&$
2$ Yemen ad not persuaded te %ri#unal tat te istoric bilad el
%e!en ad e=ercised territorial control o"er coastal areas and
perforce o"er te islands$
9$ In any case, #ecause te 3ttoman Empire &ould a"e ad title to
te Islands and te %reaty of 2ausanne could a"e "alidly alienated
tat title, te cain of title necessary for a re"ersion &ould a"e
#een interrupted$
A$ 1n a shadowy application o* the doctrine o* uti possidetis, the
)ribunal did ta-e account o* the e/ercise o* 23urisdiction4 which
could constitute 2historic *act.4
a$ %e allocation of administrati"e po&ers o"er te )ed *ea
islands during te 3smanli period &as one suc istoric
fact$
*o"ereign title includes te capacity to alienate$ 8ence te successor to te
3ttoman Empire &as a#le to alienate te islands as it did in te treaty of
2ausanne,s Art$ 16$ (p$ 6BC+$
1$ All te contested islands, according to te %ri#unal &ere co"ered
#y suc pro"ision, despite intermittent acceptance tat (some+
&ere under te @urisdiction of Italy and ad erga o!nes effect$
As regards Yemen,s contention tat te 2ausanne treaty &as res inter alios
acta, te %ri#unal said;
(t+is special category of treaties also represents a legal reality &ic
necessarily impinges upon te tird states, #ecause tey a"e effect erga
o!nes. If *tate A as title to territory and passes it to *tate <, ten it is
legally &itout purpose for *tate 1 to in"o.e te principle of res inter
alios acta, unless its title is #etter tan tat of A 5rater tan of <6$ In te
a#sence of suc #etter title, a claim of res inter alios acta is &itout legal
import$
Yemen,s protests could a"e no effect on tis alienation, as Yemen did not
a"e title$
At te core of te %ri#unal,s a&ard is a reading of At$ 16 of te 2ausanne
%reaty;
PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW | B2015
CASE DIGESTS
in 1929 %ur.ey renounced title to tose islands o"er &ic it ad
so"ereignty until ten$ %ey did not #ecome res nullius D tat is to say,
open to ac!uisiti"e prescription D #y any state, including any of te 8ig
1ontracting Parties 5including Italy6$ 0or did tey automatically re"ert
5insofar as tey ad e"er #elonged6 to te Imam (Yemen+$ *o"ereign title
o"er tem remained indeterminate pro te!pore.
In its "ie&, te %ri#unal &as confirmed #y te 192B )ome 1on"entions
&ic produced a signed record and #y te 199E Anglo'Italian Agreement
and Protocol, especially Art$ A of Anne= III$, &ic ad te effect of
depri"ing Italian actions of legal and title'generating force in te contested
islands$
1$ Argua#ly, suc actions &ould a"e oter&ise signified or
constituted effecti"e occupation$
)his negati,e analysis o* rt. 15 does not answer the +uestion o* who is the
territorial so,ereign o* the contested islands, but rather who was not the
territorial so,ereign and there*ore could not pass title to a putati,e
successor.
1$ %e analysis is oddly incomplete$
a$ %e %ri#unal does not e=plain &en and &y Art$ 16,s
suspensi"e force ceased, suc tat te %ri#unal and te
parties #efore it could determine only #y reference to
alleged e**ecti,it6s of Eritea and Yemen and &itout te
participation of all te parties concerned 5e$g$ states
&ose sips tra"erse te )ed *ea and are parties to te
2igtouse 1on"ention, and also include te /F, 7rance,
Etiopia, )ussia, Israel and te /*6$
#$ If te class parties concerned is tis large, ten te
rele"ance of may #ilateral @udicial and ar#itral precedents
is called into !uestion$
)he tribunal concluded that 1taly could not !a-e + clai! that it had title
o,er the islands in dispute.
1$ It is curious tat te %ri#unal interprets Art$ 29 of te 19GB Peace
%reaty as not merely relin!uising its rigts to participate as a
concerned party in te disposition of te islands under Art$ 16 of
te %reaty of 2ausanne, #ut also as a renunciation of claims of
Italy to te islands$
2$ If %ur.ey ad title until 1929, &ereupon Art$ 16 depri"ed Italian
e**ecti,it6s of legal effect, &at su#stanti"e Italian title &as #eing
renouncedH
9$ In te "ie& of te %ri#unal, te indeterminate status of te island
&as confirmed #y a 19A9 /0 4or.ing Paper in connection &it
te preparation of te draft Eritrean 1onstitution$
.ith respect to the lighthouses on so!e o* the contested islands, te
%ri#unal eld tat (#+y te outrea. of (44II+ it may #e said tat te
maintenance of te ligts is seen as a non'so"ereign act and tere is
agreement tat te underlying title to te islands concerned &as left in
a#eyance$
1$ In tis regard, "arious Etiopian acti"ities &ere immaterial to
so"ereignty$
2$ Yet #ecause #y te early 19BCs Yemen &as regarded #y te (/F+
as te leading party concerned for purposes of Art$ 16 of te %reay
of 2ausanne, at lest so far A#u Ali and >a#al al'%ayr &ere
concerned, te fact tat Yemen relit te ligtouse in 19EB &as an
act not &itout significance #y "irtue of Art$ 16 of te (said
treaty+$ As a legal matter;
%e erection and maintenance of ligts, outside of any treaty
arrangements and for te indefinite future, ad certain
implications$ %e acceptance of Yemen,s offer did not constitute
recognition of Yemen so"ereignty o"er islands$ <ut it did accept
te reality tat Yemen &as #est placed, and &as &illing, to ta.e
on te role of pro"iding and managing ligts in tat part of te
)ed *eaI and tat &en te time came finally to determine te
status of tose islands Yemen &ould certainly #e a party
concerned$
Jespite te fact tat te %ri#unal,s teory &as #ased on a reading of Art$ 16
tat depri"ed manifestations of so"ereignty of ac!uisiti"e force, almost 1K9
of its opinion assesses te !uality of te parties, factual e"idence of alleged
e**ecti,it6s.
1$ %e tri#unal found tat legislati"e and constitutional acts #y #ot
parties lac.ed specific reference to te islands #y name$
2$ It also found tat te acti"ities of te parties in relation regulation
of fising allo& no clear conclusion to #e dra&n$
PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW | B2015
CASE DIGESTS
9$ It did not find tat Etiopian na"al patrols &ere directed at fising
regulation, #ut concluded tat tere &as some&at greater Yemeni
in te granting of permission related to te islands$
A$ 0o e"idence of pu#lication of general information regarding
pilotage or maritime safety #y Eritrea$ 3n te oter and, Yemen
pu#lised si= notices$
a$ 4ile not dispositi"e of te title, it supposes a presence
and .nol&dge of location$
G$ It discounted te maintenance of te ligtouses, it too. note of te
placement of mar.ers$
6$ 0o manifestations may #e inferred from *A) operations #ecause
tey are a generali:ed duty incum#ent on any person or "essel$
B$ It found sparse and inconsistent e"idence of te maintenance of
na"al and coast guard patrols in te &aters around te islands on
#ealf of #ot parties$
a$ 8o&e"er, from 19E9'1991, it found &idespread
sur"eillance and military reconnaissance acti"ities in te
&aters around te islands #y te Etiopian 0a"y$
#$ Yemen, on te oter and, conducted "ery fe& similar
acti"ities in te area$
i$ %ey did not protest te Etiopian presence, nor
&ere permanent garrisons or military posts &ere
esta#lised in te islands until after 199G$
E$ 0o legal significance can #e ascri#ed to pri"ate fising acti"ities
&itout e"idence of state licensing and enforcement$
a$ *tate acti"ity &as te critical factor$
9$ %e maintenance of srines and oly places &as not deemed
critical e"idence, unless it &as a go"ernmental acti"ity$
1C$ Intentions &it respect to go"ernmental in"estment acti"ity &ere,
apparently, allo&ed some pro#ati"e &eigt$
11$ %e regulation of electronic e!uipment on te islands in te course
of military acti"ities &as not "ie&ed as an e=ercise of so"ereign
autority, #ut appeared to allo& more &eigt to a recent scientific
e=pedition #y Yemen$
12$ 3"erfligts of unina#ited islans &ere not e"idence of e**ecti,it6s$
%e parties ad differed on te pro#ati"e "alue of te many maps tat &ere
adduced$
1$ Eritrea contended tat map e"idence &as contradictory and
unrelia#le$
2$ Yemen argued tat it &as important e"idence of general opinion,
of te attitueds of te parties and of ac!uiescence$
9$ %e %ri#unal eld tat %emeni map e"idence &as superior in cope
and "olume, #ut &as not decisi"e$
%e tri#unal, &it regard to te information it ad solicited from te parties
&it regard to petroleum e=ploration and e=ploitation acti"ities, concluded
tat offsore petroleum contracts entered into #y te parties failed to
esta#lis or e"en strengten, eiter of teir claims to so"ereignty o"er te
islands, (t+ose contracts o&e"er lend a measure of support to te median
line #et&een te coasts of (te t&o parties+, dra&n &itout regard to te
islands, di"iding te respecti"e @urisdictions of te parties$
1$ 0e"erteless, te implementation of te petroleum contracts
in"ol"ed state acti"ities to &ic te %ri#unal did allo& legal
significance$
The Tribunals Conclusions
1$ %e tri#unal eld tat neiter party &as a#le to esta#lis istoric titlte
to te islands, islets and roc.s, and tat te relati"ely recent istory of
use and possession &ould pro"e decisi"e$
a$ Yes, applying te test of continuous and peaceful
display of te functions of *tate &itin a gi"en
region, as esta#lised in 1sland o* &al!as, or e"en
accepting a test of "ery little in te &ay f actual
e=ercise of so"ereign rigts, te tri#unal &as not
certain tat eiter party ad demonstrated title$
2$ %e tri#unal a"oided an a&ard of non li+uet #y reacing for
criteria tat te Ar#itration Agreement ad not autori:ed;
In tese circumstances &ere for all te reasons @ust descri#ed
te acti"ities relied upon #y te parties, toug many,
sometimes spea. &it an uncertain "oice, it is surely rigt for
te tri#unal to consider &eter tere are in te instant case
oter factors &ic migt elp to resol"e some of tese
uncertainties$
9$ %e tri#unal ac.no&ledged tat its departure &as !uite radical
(p$ 6BA for te #loc. !uote+$
a$ %e departure from te cro!pro!is &as e"en furter
tan te preceding !uestion suggests, as te
assignment of &at te %ri#unal styled te "arious
PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW | B2015
CASE DIGESTS
su#'units of islands &as effected simply #y a
presumption of pro=imity$
i$ Moa##a.a islands &ere assigned to
Eritrea #ecause of o& close it &as to te
Eritrean coast, regardless of te istory$
ii$ %e 8ig Islet, sligtly more tan 12
nautical miles from te territorial sea
#aseline, &as included in te assignment for
te rater tautological reason tat it &as part
of te same group saring te same legal
destiny$
1$ %e effort #y Eritrea to leapfrog
sea&ard to include oter islands
#eyond te 12'mile territorial sea
&as #loc.ed #y te %ri#unal,
#ecause te more sea&ard islands
do not #enefit from te neo'
presumption of propin!uity$
2$ Yet te tri#unal a&arded te small
8aycoc. islands &ic lie #eyond
Eritrea,s territorial sea to Eritrea
#ecause Yemen failed to esta#lis a
superior claim in ligt of te
islands geograpical pro=imity to
Eritrea$
iii. party see-ing to de*eat the presu!ption o*
pro/i!ity is, apparently, obliged to sub!it a
*ully#established case to the contrary, while
all that is needed to de*eat the pro/i!ity
argu!ent beyond the territorial sea is
another relati,ely 2superior title.4
1$ Yemen could not only marsal a
superior claim to o"ercome
pro=imity, #ut, in fact, Eritrea,s
petroleum acti"ity e=tended to te
8aycoc. islands &ile Yemen,s
did not$
2$ *uc acti"ity &as not protested #y
Yemen$
i"$ *out 4est )oc.s &ere also a&arded to
Eritrea #ecause tey &ere, at "arious times,
considered to form te easternmost limit of
African'coast @urisdiction and #ecause of
Italian assertions of @urisdiction o"er all te
proposed sites$
1$ %e %ri#unal, o&e"er, did not
in!uire as to &eter te roc.s
&ere capa#le of appropriation$
2$ 0or did it e=plain &y assertions of
@urisdiction could not trump Art$ 16
in any oter areas sould suddenly
ac!uire a decisi"e legal "alence$
9$ 0eiter did it e=plain &y uti
possidetis, &ose legal application
&as not accepted, sould a"e legal
effect ere,
"$ %e 8anis islands and ?u!ar could not #e
ad@udicated upon using te propin!uity
presumption or appurtenance factor,
&ic are in te center of te red sea and
di"ided #y a median line$
1$ According to te %ri#unal neiter
party could ma.e a istorical claim
to te islands, ence, te %ri#unal
ad to loo. into oter factors$
a$ 1onstruction and
maintenance of
ligtouses D cogent
e"idence of Yemen
presence$
#$ 0a"al patrols D
Am#iguous$ 0o
compelling case for eiter
party$
c$ Petroleum agreements D
no conclusi"e e"idence
could #e gleaned from
suc$
PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW | B2015
CASE DIGESTS
2$ %us, te tri#unal &as faced &it a
!uandary of deciding &en its
record &as #ased on insufficient
e"idence$ 8ence, it loo.ed to
e**ecti,it6s.
a$ Yemen su#mitted AE
alleged appenings or
incidents in respect of te
islands #et&een 19E9'
mid'1991
#$ 3n te #asis of suc, te
%ri#unal rules in fa"or of
Yemen$
"i$ 4it respect to 8anis, te %ri#unal
ac.no&ledged tat Eritrea,s claim &as &ell'
esta#lised, o&e"er, Yemen ad more to
so& #y &ay of presence and display of
autority$
"ii$ 4it respect to >a#al al'%ayr and te ?u#ayr
group, te tri#unal noted te paucity of
e"idence adduced #y #ot sides, as &ell as
te pro=imity of te islands to Yemeni,s
coast$
1$ 4ile te tri#unal &as am#i"alent
regarding te so"ereignty
conse!uences of maintaining a
ligtouse, it found tat Yemen,s
actions in tis regard and te
response of te international
maritime users &as a factor of
some significance$
2$ 8ence, te tri#unal rued in fa"or of
Yemen in tis regard$
Appraisal (1omments #y te autor+
Judicial 1nno,ations
1$ 7onsent o* concerned parties D te tri#unal,s construction of Art$
16 of te 2ausanne 1on"ention is te #asis for te re@ection of
Eritrea,s central argument$
a$ <ut if te pro"ision suspended resolution of te
!uestion of so"ereignty disputes o"er te islands,
suc tat Italian actions did not constitute e**ecti,it6s,
&en did Art$ 16 #ecome caduceus
#$ If Art$ 16 is still in force, ten te consent of all
concerned parties is re!uired for te su#mission of
ta !uestion to a tird party$
c$ 8o&e"er, not all parties agreed to te co!pro!ise$
%us, te tri#unal,s construction of Art$ 16 raises
!uestions a#out te tri#unal,s @urisdiction$
d$ %is migt a"e #een o#"iated if te dispute &as
referred to te I1>$
2$ rbitral re,iew D %e selection of 2 sitting @udges as
@urisdictional implications$
a$ If te "alidity of te a&ards &ere callenged in te
first or second stage, it &ould #e reasona#le to
assume tat te I1> &ould a"e #een called upon to
resol"e te claims of nullity$
#$ 8o&e"er, t&o of te @udges, as +uonda! ar#itrators,
&ould a"e to recuse temsel"es$
c$ %ese costs suggest tat te utility and propriety of
I1> @udges sitting as ar#itrators in pu#lic international
disputes sould #e reconsidered$
&rocedural 1nno,ations
1$ Se+uencing o* issues D 7or reasons un.no&n, te parties
decided to conduct te ar#itration into t&o separate pases;
territorial so"ereignty and maritime #oundaries$
a$ Yemen seemed an=ious to insulate eac stage from te
oter$ In fact, it stated tat te %ri#unal migt #e
prefigure an e"entual stage t&o maritime solution as an
element of its tin.ing a#out stage one$
#$ %e %ri#unal allo&ed tat tere could #e no !uestion of
prefiguring, and yet it stated tat it is una#le to accept te
proposition tat I2 go"erning land territory and I2
go"erning maritime #oundaries a"e no @uridical
rele"ance to eac oter$
i$ In fact, te islands &ere essentially a&arded to
te pro=imate littoral state$
PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW | B2015
CASE DIGESTS
2$ Deciding as to scope 8 te tri#unal determined te scope of
te proceedings on te #asis of te positions of te parties$
a$ 4en parties cannot agree on scope, te option of
referring te matter to a tri#unal facilitates te ar#itration
agreement,s conclusion$
#$ 4en a tri#unal decides scope, te party tat pressed for a
narro&er one as no coice #ut to de"elop a defense
against its ad"ersary,s #roader claims$
c$ If te tri#unal, instead of ma.ing an e=plicit decision,
simply refers to te pleadings, te party tat pressed for a
#roader scope &ill al&ays pre"ail$
d$ 2ong'term conse!uence D disagreements a#out scope &ill
pre"ent contro"ersies from #eing su#mitted to tri#unals,
ma.ing it more difficult to conclude ar#itration
agreements$
e$ %e formula used #y te tri#unal to couc its decision
may not facilitate future agreements on co!pro!is$
9$ Hydrocarbon 9ocation in )erritorial and Mariti!e :oundary
Dispute D te rele"ance of tis re!uest (information on
petroleum agreements+ for determining so"ereignty o"er
contested islands is not immediately apparent$
A$ 7ritical Date D %e tri#unal,s &ard contri#utes to te decay of
te doctrine of critical date 5cut'off date for te admissi#ility
of e"idence6$
a$ A rigorous application of suc &ould a"e precluded a
decision, in ligt of te paucity of credi#le istorical
e"idence$
#$ 4ile te position of te tri#unal in tis regard is
understanda#le, it sould a"e crafted te language
&ic migt a"e distinguised te general applica#ility
of te doctrine from te facts of te instant case$
Substanti,e 1nno,ations
1$ ,oiding ;on 9i+uet by 1nno,ati,e &resu!ptions D %e
%ri#unal could not determine te dispute #y &ay of succession
to title or effecti"e occupation$ %e essential principles &ere
e=pressed #y Ma= 8u#er in te 1sland o* 9as &al!as (p$ 6BE+$
a$ %e %ri#unal &as forced into an anomalous position of
a"ing to treat effecti"e acts, suc as Italy,s, not as
demonstrations of so"ereignty #ut as e=ercises of
@urisdiction$
i$ In essence, effecti"e acts &ere not to #e treated
as effecti"e acts$
#$ 0one of te parties &ere a#le to adduce e"idence tat
&ould esta#lis title #y effecti"e occupation$
c$ %e ar#itration agreement did not empo&er te tri#unal to
a&ard on te #asis of a sligtly #etter claim$
d$ 8ence, te tri#unal ad to create a ne& la& if it &ised to
issue an a&ard$
i$ %e %ri#unal prescri#ed a strong presumption in
fa"or of state,s so"ereignty o"er maritime
formations in its territorial sea #y "irtue of
propin!uity alone$
1$ It is not ne&, #ut #y te %ri#unal,s
formulation, it is no& a presu!ption
3uris et de 3ure D can only #e defeated
#y a fully'esta#lised case to te
contrary$
ii$ %e %ri#unal also prescri#ed a presumption in
fa"or of te most pro=imate coastal state,s title D
can only #e defeated #y a relati"ely stronger
claim$
2$ Reducing the "**ecti,e Occupation Re+uire!ent D Li"en te
paucity of e"idence, te %ri#unal ad to render a decision on a
different criterion tan tat contemplated in te Ar#itration
Agreement$
a$ %e criteria of &al!as and 7lipperton &ere inapplica#le
#ecause te islands in !uestion &ere at te "ery center of
ma@or na"igation routes$
i$ %e inaccessi#ility factor used in 7lipperton
&ould a"e #een reduced and te re!uisite le"el
of manifestation of so"ereignty increased$
9$ )erritoriali<ing 9ow#tide ele,ations D %is may #e te first
instance in &ic an autoritati"e decision as caracteri:ed
lo&'tide ele"ations #eyond te territorial sea as territory, in
effect assimilating tem to islands$ Yet, tere is no discussion
of te matter$
a. )he author assu!es that the intention was that *or!ations
in the territorial sea and the "/clusi,e "cono!ic =ones
PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW | B2015
CASE DIGESTS
should pertain, presu!pti,ely, to the pro/i!ate coastal
state, sub3ect to a better clai! o* another.
b. 1* these *or!ations were endowed with their own ""= and
continental shel*, they could ha,e a signi*icant e**ect on
!ariti!e boundary deli!itation, especially ,ers de large,
unless rticle 1>1?@A o* the 9aw o* the Sea 7on,ention is
applied strictly.
i. )he tribunal re3ected the techni+ue o*
2leap*rogging,4 thus restraining so!e nationa
lunges *or 3urisdiction.
A$ )he Relati,e Balue o* "**ecti,it6s 8 0o comparati"e appraisals
of te relati"e "alue of different forms of e**ecti,it6s.
G$ Cti &ossidetis 8 %e tri#unal seemed uncomforta#le in
applying tis doctrine$ %e critical !uestion it sould a"e
addressed, &ic it &as reluctant to, is &eter te policies of
uti possidetis e=pressed currently e@oy regional or general
international support, and if not, &eter tey sould$
6$ Decoloni<ation and )erritorial Stability 8 %e %ri#unal
declared tat it as not #een esta#lised as to &eter te
doctrine of re"ersion is part of international la&$ 7rom tere,
one could see te cautious and conser"ati"e approac to
decoloni:ation,s effect on te sta#ility of territorial
so"ereignty$
B$ )he &ersistence o* "urocentris! 8 In an obiter, te %ri#unal
critici:ed te Eurocentric approac to title ac!uisition
manifested #y implication in .estern Sahara. /ltimately, te
tri#unal fell into te same confusion$
a$ %e %ri#unal &as generous in finding int,l ser"itudes and
in insisting on te protection of traditional fising rigts,
yet it persisted in demanding te e=tension of socio'
political po&er o"er te geograpic area to secure title$
i$ 0o cogent reason e=ists for not applying a .ore
sensiti"e socio'ecological test to unina#ited
islands &ic are not claimed to #e falling &itin
te limits of istorical &aters$
ii$ If islands, li.e arid land'#ased areas, cannot
support permanent a#itation, #ut can support a
seasonal one, &o o&e fealty to a ruler, tat
sould constitute an e**ecti,it6.
#$ *ould not seasonal and ecologically'dictated mo"ement
of people to &aterless islands a"e te same title'
generati"e potential tat it &ould a"e in arid and semi'
arid areasH
i$ International @urisprudence still seems capti"e to
deeply eld political'cultural notions, una#le to
gi"e recogni:e and gi"e due effect to forms of
political organi:ations tat a"e e"ol"ed in
@urisdictions different from tose of Europe$