Thought this might add to this discussion...
LN
[log in to unmask] wrote:
> Dear Irini,
>
> In regard to your question about the possibility of having a "single
> maritime boundary" between two states in an area where only one of
> these States has an EEZ, I wondered if you are interested in state
> practice as well as jurisprudence. An example of such practice is the
> 1990 US-USSR (Russia) maritime boundary, the text of which is
> available at the UN DOALOS website. The two countries fixed a single
> maritime boundary that delimited areas where one state claims an EEZ
> and the other (eventually) will claim an extended continental shelf.
> Article 3 of the agreement also provides for one party to exercise EEZ
> jurisdiction on its side of the line beyond 200 nautical miles where
> the area is within 200 nm of the other party. That is, the sides
> traded EEZ jurisdiction along the line even where the area is beyond
> 200 nm from the country's coast.
>
> If you wish more analysis of this agreement, you might look at the
> following, among others:
>
> Elferink, Alex Oude. "The 1990 USSR-USA Maritime Boundary Agreement,"
> /International Journal of Estuarine and Coastal Law/ 6 (Feb 1991): 41-52.
>
> Smith, Robert W. "United States - Russia Maritime Boundary," in
> /World Boundaries: Maritime Boundaries/ (vol. 5), pp. 91-99, edited by
> Gerald H. Blake. London: Routledge, 1994.
>
> Antinori, Camille M. "The Bering Sea: A Maritime Delimitation Dispute
> Between the United States and the Soviet Union," /Ocean Development
> and International Law /18 (1987): 1-47.
>
> McNeill, John H. "America's Maritime Boundary with the Soviet Union,"
> /Naval War College Review/ 44 (Summer 1991): 46-57./
>
> /Regards,
> Dan Dzurek
|