Mr. President, your excellencies, and may it plea the tribunal: This ca is about how to legally and equitably delimit the maritime boundary between the Applicant and the Respondent, and the Applicant through its counl respectfully submits four pleadings:
马虎的近义词
First, no customary line delimiting the respective EEZ and continental shelf exists.
Second, the appropriate form of the delimitation is a single maritime boundary drawn by the application of the equidistance/special circumstances rule.
Third, the Coff Island is a relevant circumstance in this ca and it shall be given full delimitation effect in the prent ca.
Forth, the Tribunal has jurisdiction over the delimitation of the continental shelf beyond 200 nautical miles.
Now I will proceed to make the first two pleadings and my co-counl will make the other two pleadings.
The Applicant’s first pleading is that there is no customary line delimiting the respective EEZ and continental shelf.
Firstly, There is no agreement between the Parties to support the existence of any customary line.Article 74 of UNCLOS provides that only if there is an effective delimitation agreement of the EEZ and the continental shelf between the parties, it may be accorded priority. Otherwi the procedure under UNCLOS should be followed to resolve the delimitation. In the prent ca,there is no delimitation agreement of the eez and continental shelf brtween the parties. T读庄子he 1961 Treaty between Krensburg and Allbek is not a delimitation agreement of the EEZ and continental shelf.
Initially, in the scope of statute law, the notion of the EEZ only occurs in UNCLOS. Moreover, in the scope of customary law, the rules regarding to the EEZ were established until 1985 and became an esntial matter to every coastal states.
Besides, the rules of “continental shelf” today is not equivalent to that of 1961 . Comparing the rules regarding to continental shelf in 1958 Convention on the Continental
Shelf and 1982 convention on the law of the a, it can be concluded that thereare are many differences between them. The intentions behind the two rules are totally inconsistent. The latter one is not only bad如果给我一次机会 on the establishment of the EEZ, but also strongly influenced by the regulations of the EEZ.
1985?why
what kind of diffference
Why do you state the112是什么意思
In the prent ca, the 1961 Treaty only includes the following affairs:
(a) Krensburg’s recognition of Allbek’s sovereignty over Coff Island
数字的意思
(b) the delimitation line drawn by two states and
(c) the traditional fishing zone rerved in the surrounding waters of Coff Island.
Q: Don’t you just say that there is no delimitation line between the parties?
A:Although the two states draw a delimitation line in the gulf from the terminus of the land boundary between Allbek and Krensburg. We can clearly e that the length of the delimitation line drawn by the two countries in the treaty is only about one quarter of the length of the exclusive economic zone which is 200 nauticle miles.
A捐衣服pparently, there exist no rules even no mentionof the EEZ or continental shelf 二月英语缩写and no agreement can ttle the future problems in the 1961 treaty. Therefore, the intention of the establishment of the 1961 Treaty Line is not to delimit the respective EEZ and continental shelf. The nature of the 1961 Treaty Line is only a method to delimit boundary of territorial waters, instead of a line delimiting the respective EEZ and continental shelf.
Why to interprete the intention of the parties
Secondly, the practice of the two states do not verify the extension of the 1961 treaty line as a Customary line.Custom is ud in international law “as evidence of a general practice accepted as law” . To determine whether a custom is formed, it may be necessary to find out whether there are some basic elements. It is well acknowledged tha
t at least three factors have to be taken into consideration in determining whether there is a customary line.气势造句 The factors are: (a) the exerci of authority over the area by the state claiming the customary line; (b) the continuity of this exerci of authority; (c) the attitude of foreign states. If the facts lack any above factors, the extension of the 1961 Treaty Line simply cannot be deemed as customary line. In the prent ca, Allbek has never accepted the existence of the customary line, which leads to the lack of the third factor: the attitude of foreign states.
