240
In any case, reference must be made to the state practice relating to multinational
bays. Examples abound of bays, gulfs, or other indentations shared by two States
that have been closed by mutual agreement between those States.
75
A variety of
methods have been employed to close this type of bays. A frequent approach has
been to conclude an agreement providing not only for the enclosure of the bay, but
also the delimitation of the waters within and outside it, as was the case with the
Ruvuma Bay, bordered by Tanzania and Mozambique.
76
Sometimes the same result
has been achieved through “successive approximations”: in the case of Gwatar Bay,
Iran and Pakistan, at different moments, closed their respective system of straight
baselines by selecting a median point located in the mouth of the bay, and subsequently agreed upon a delimitation of the waters of the bay.
77
At other times, the two
States have each extended their own straight-baselines system using as its initial/
final point a point established by either a pre-existing territorial sea delimitation
agreement between them or an arbitration award.
78
At still other times, the coastal
States concerned hold a multinational bay or parts of it in condominium.
79
It must be noted that, in some cases, third States have protested against agreements of that type, or against claims of sovereignty over the entire waters of a multinational bay.
80
In other cases, the absence of an express agreement between the
two States to close a bay, or divide its waters, has led to delimitation of the bay
under Article 15 UNCLOS, with its waters being regarded as territorial sea.
81
75 For a general overview, see Bouchez (1964), pp. 116–169.
76 See Agreement between the Government of the United Republic of Tanzania and the Government
of the People’s Republic of Mozambique regarding the Tanzania/Mozambique Boundary, 28
December 1988, available at: http://www.un.org/depts/los/. For other examples, see Symmons
(2017), p. 117.
77 See Prescott and Schofield (2005), p. 113, and the Tehran Agreement of 16 June 1997, establishing an all-purpose equidistance line, mentioned in the Submission by the Government of the Islamic
Republic of Pakistan for the Establishment of the Outer Limits of the Continental Shelf of Pakistan,
p. 5, available at: http://www.un.org/depts/los/.
78 An example cited by Prescott and Schofield (2005), p. 113, is the Idefjord, shared by Norway and
Sweden, which was closed by joining the Norwegian and Swedish straight baselines at a point
located in the sea at the center of a line connecting Swedish and Norwegian islets.
79 Aside from the rather special case of the Gulf of Fonseca, which both the Central American Court
of Justice in 1917 and the ICJ in 1992 found to be an historic bay held in condominium by El
Salvador, Nicaragua and Honduras, except for a 3 nm belt adjacent to the coast of each State, an
example cited by Bouchez (1964), pp. 137–138, is the Bay of Figuier, shared by France and Spain,
which was divided into three zones, two under the sovereignty of each State, and one held in common by the two States. Another example is the Bay of Klek, which was under the joint sovereignty
of Austria and Turkey prior to the First World War (ibidem, pp. 138–139).
80 See the examples reported by Symmons (2017), p. 117. But see Scovazzi (2011), p. 29.
81 A case in point is the Gulf of Riga. After the dissolution of the Soviet Union, Latvia wanted the
Gulf of Riga to be a condominium, but Estonia refused. The Gulf was later delimited according to
the principles applicable to the delimitation of the territorial sea, as evidenced by the Agreement on
the Maritime Delimitation of the Gulf of Riga, the Strait of Irbe and the Baltic Sea of 12 July 1996
(available at: http://www.un.org/depts/los/). This case, too, could have raised the issue of succession to sovereignty over disputed waters. However, as noted by Kohen (2009), pp. 168–169, the
Agreement effected de novo delimitation “puisqu’aucune limite administrative n’existait
auparavant”.
A. Insolia
In any case, reference must be made to the state practice relating to multinational
bays. Examples abound of bays, gulfs, or other indentations shared by two States
that have been closed by mutual agreement between those States.
75
A variety of
methods have been employed to close this type of bays. A frequent approach has
been to conclude an agreement providing not only for the enclosure of the bay, but
also the delimitation of the waters within and outside it, as was the case with the
Ruvuma Bay, bordered by Tanzania and Mozambique.
76
Sometimes the same result
has been achieved through “successive approximations”: in the case of Gwatar Bay,
Iran and Pakistan, at different moments, closed their respective system of straight
baselines by selecting a median point located in the mouth of the bay, and subsequently agreed upon a delimitation of the waters of the bay.
77
At other times, the two
States have each extended their own straight-baselines system using as its initial/
final point a point established by either a pre-existing territorial sea delimitation
agreement between them or an arbitration award.
78
At still other times, the coastal
States concerned hold a multinational bay or parts of it in condominium.
79
It must be noted that, in some cases, third States have protested against agreements of that type, or against claims of sovereignty over the entire waters of a multinational bay.
80
In other cases, the absence of an express agreement between the
two States to close a bay, or divide its waters, has led to delimitation of the bay
under Article 15 UNCLOS, with its waters being regarded as territorial sea.
81
75 For a general overview, see Bouchez (1964), pp. 116–169.
76 See Agreement between the Government of the United Republic of Tanzania and the Government
of the People’s Republic of Mozambique regarding the Tanzania/Mozambique Boundary, 28
December 1988, available at: http://www.un.org/depts/los/. For other examples, see Symmons
(2017), p. 117.
77 See Prescott and Schofield (2005), p. 113, and the Tehran Agreement of 16 June 1997, establishing an all-purpose equidistance line, mentioned in the Submission by the Government of the Islamic
Republic of Pakistan for the Establishment of the Outer Limits of the Continental Shelf of Pakistan,
p. 5, available at: http://www.un.org/depts/los/.
78 An example cited by Prescott and Schofield (2005), p. 113, is the Idefjord, shared by Norway and
Sweden, which was closed by joining the Norwegian and Swedish straight baselines at a point
located in the sea at the center of a line connecting Swedish and Norwegian islets.
79 Aside from the rather special case of the Gulf of Fonseca, which both the Central American Court
of Justice in 1917 and the ICJ in 1992 found to be an historic bay held in condominium by El
Salvador, Nicaragua and Honduras, except for a 3 nm belt adjacent to the coast of each State, an
example cited by Bouchez (1964), pp. 137–138, is the Bay of Figuier, shared by France and Spain,
which was divided into three zones, two under the sovereignty of each State, and one held in common by the two States. Another example is the Bay of Klek, which was under the joint sovereignty
of Austria and Turkey prior to the First World War (ibidem, pp. 138–139).
80 See the examples reported by Symmons (2017), p. 117. But see Scovazzi (2011), p. 29.
81 A case in point is the Gulf of Riga. After the dissolution of the Soviet Union, Latvia wanted the
Gulf of Riga to be a condominium, but Estonia refused. The Gulf was later delimited according to
the principles applicable to the delimitation of the territorial sea, as evidenced by the Agreement on
the Maritime Delimitation of the Gulf of Riga, the Strait of Irbe and the Baltic Sea of 12 July 1996
(available at: http://www.un.org/depts/los/). This case, too, could have raised the issue of succession to sovereignty over disputed waters. However, as noted by Kohen (2009), pp. 168–169, the
Agreement effected de novo delimitation “puisqu’aucune limite administrative n’existait
auparavant”.
A. Insolia