Thanks for your interesting views. Just two minor points. The award in Barbados/Trinidad is pertinent to this matter. Secondly, it seems to me that your suggestion that what is also relevant are protest of "affected States" is possibly a bit biased. The protest of "zone-locked" States against their neighbors trying to block them are of course equally relevant.

_______________________________________________
Alex G. Oude Elferink
Netherlands Institute for the Law of the Sea (NILOS)
School of Law
Utrecht University
Achter Sint Pieter 200
3512 HT Utrecht
The Netherlands
European Union
tel: .. 31 (0)30 2537033
fax: .. 31 (0)30 2537073
email: [log in to unmask]
_______________________________________________

With respect to what Alex has just noted, I should say that I'm not totally convinced about there not being a precedence between EEZ/CS within 200M and CS beyond 200M. To the best of my knowledge, no court has ever addressed this issue directly. I believe there is (little or) no doubt about a precedence between 12-mile TS entitlements and EEZ/CS within 200M entitlements (the former naturally prevailing over the latter). Along analogous lines of thought, I actually think that (all things considered) a reasonable argument can be made to support the idea that there is a precedence between EEZ/CS within 200M and CS beyond 200M (cf. pp.137-145 of my book). But I do grant that this is yet to be tested before a court; and that State practice will be pivotal to arriving at a better groudned conclusion. By State practice I mean not only bilateral CS delimitation agreements, but also in terms of unilateral acts - e.g. whether or not the States affected by claims made by zone-locked States (at least some on the basis "leapfrogging entitlements") will protest such claims.