The Implications of Maritime Delimitation Judgments for Third States: The Nicaragua v. Colombia and Costa Riva v. Nicaragua Cases Revisited

Research output: Contribution to journal › Journal article › Research › peer-review

Standard

The Implications of Maritime Delimitation Judgments for Third States : The Nicaragua v. Colombia and Costa Riva v. Nicaragua Cases Revisited. / Tanaka, Yoshifumi.

In: The International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law, Vol. 39, No. 2, 2024, p. 374–397.

Research output: Contribution to journal › Journal article › Research › peer-review

Harvard

Tanaka, Y 2024, 'The Implications of Maritime Delimitation Judgments for Third States: The Nicaragua v. Colombia and Costa Riva v. Nicaragua Cases Revisited', The International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law, vol. 39, no. 2, pp. 374–397. https://doi.org/10.1163/15718085-bja10169

APA

Tanaka, Y. (2024). The Implications of Maritime Delimitation Judgments for Third States: The Nicaragua v. Colombia and Costa Riva v. Nicaragua Cases Revisited. The International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law, 39(2), 374–397. https://doi.org/10.1163/15718085-bja10169

Vancouver

Tanaka Y. The Implications of Maritime Delimitation Judgments for Third States: The Nicaragua v. Colombia and Costa Riva v. Nicaragua Cases Revisited. The International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law. 2024;39(2):374–397. https://doi.org/10.1163/15718085-bja10169

Author

Tanaka, Yoshifumi. / The Implications of Maritime Delimitation Judgments for Third States : The Nicaragua v. Colombia and Costa Riva v. Nicaragua Cases Revisited. In: The International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law. 2024 ; Vol. 39, No. 2. pp. 374–397.

Bibtex

@article{76377b22df5d45e0a7701acfca49c16c,
title = "The Implications of Maritime Delimitation Judgments for Third States: The Nicaragua v. Colombia and Costa Riva v. Nicaragua Cases Revisited",
abstract = "The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea contains only general rules concerning the delimitation of the exclusive economic zone and the continental shelf. However, international courts and tribunals have, within their compass, elaborated the law of maritime delimitation through their jurisprudence, thereby maintaining the resilience of the Convention in a particular context of maritime delimitations. The jurisprudence is not a panacea, however. As regards the implications of maritime delimitation judgments for third States in the same region, for example, the jurisprudence has not been consistent. Lack of consistency of the jurisprudence may undermine the predictability of the law of maritime delimitation and weaken the resilience of the Convention. This article critically assesses the approach of the International Court of Justice to the presence of third States in the process of maritime delimitation, by analysing the Nicaragua v. Colombia case and the Costa Rica v. Nicaragua case, respectively.",
author = "Yoshifumi Tanaka",
year = "2024",
doi = "10.1163/15718085-bja10169",
language = "English",
volume = "39",
pages = "374–397",
journal = "International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law",
issn = "0927-3522",
publisher = "Brill - Nijhoff",
number = "2",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - The Implications of Maritime Delimitation Judgments for Third States

T2 - The Nicaragua v. Colombia and Costa Riva v. Nicaragua Cases Revisited

AU - Tanaka, Yoshifumi

PY - 2024

Y1 - 2024

N2 - The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea contains only general rules concerning the delimitation of the exclusive economic zone and the continental shelf. However, international courts and tribunals have, within their compass, elaborated the law of maritime delimitation through their jurisprudence, thereby maintaining the resilience of the Convention in a particular context of maritime delimitations. The jurisprudence is not a panacea, however. As regards the implications of maritime delimitation judgments for third States in the same region, for example, the jurisprudence has not been consistent. Lack of consistency of the jurisprudence may undermine the predictability of the law of maritime delimitation and weaken the resilience of the Convention. This article critically assesses the approach of the International Court of Justice to the presence of third States in the process of maritime delimitation, by analysing the Nicaragua v. Colombia case and the Costa Rica v. Nicaragua case, respectively.

AB - The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea contains only general rules concerning the delimitation of the exclusive economic zone and the continental shelf. However, international courts and tribunals have, within their compass, elaborated the law of maritime delimitation through their jurisprudence, thereby maintaining the resilience of the Convention in a particular context of maritime delimitations. The jurisprudence is not a panacea, however. As regards the implications of maritime delimitation judgments for third States in the same region, for example, the jurisprudence has not been consistent. Lack of consistency of the jurisprudence may undermine the predictability of the law of maritime delimitation and weaken the resilience of the Convention. This article critically assesses the approach of the International Court of Justice to the presence of third States in the process of maritime delimitation, by analysing the Nicaragua v. Colombia case and the Costa Rica v. Nicaragua case, respectively.

U2 - 10.1163/15718085-bja10169

DO - 10.1163/15718085-bja10169

M3 - Journal article

VL - 39

SP - 374

EP - 397

JO - International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law

JF - International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law

SN - 0927-3522

IS - 2

ER -

ID: 393412970