254
regard both boundary lines as “[not…] wholly consistent with the applicable rules
and principles of international law”.
149
As for the general configuration of the area to be delimited, the Tribunal makes
no mention of the specific aspect that, in 1969, led the Court to introduce the “noncut off” principle, that is, the fact that the relevant coast is concave. That aspect,
however, was relied on by Slovenia, and it may be said to underlie the various special circumstances invoked by that State.
150
In addition, the Tribunal “[did] not consider that the great difference between the lengths of the coastal fronts of Croatia
and Slovenia is a special circumstance that calls for a departure from the equidistance line”.
151
Therefore, the other element that in the North Sea Continental Shelf
cases justified an assessment of proportionality as a final factor to be taken into
account for the purposes of delimitation is absent here. At the same time, the aforesaid difference did not, in the eyes of the Tribunal, justify the consideration of proportionality as a special circumstance. Rather, the Tribunal identified another special
circumstance, one which was not invoked by the Parties and which, in the Tribunal’s
view, made it necessary to adopt a line departing from a strict equidistance line:
The Tribunal does, however, consider that certain features of the coastal configuration in the
present case produce an exaggeratedly adverse effect if the strict equidistance line is used,
and do constitute a special circumstance. That special circumstance is the fact that very
close to Point A the coastline of Croatia turns sharply southwards around Cape Savudrija,
so that the Croatian basepoints that control the equidistance line are located on a very small
stretch of coast whose general (north-facing) direction is markedly different from the general (southwest-facing) direction of much the greater part of the Croatian coastline (as illustrated on the following map), and deflect the equidistance line very significantly towards the
north, greatly exaggerating the “boxed-in” nature of Slovenia’s maritime zone.
152
For the Tribunal, the provisional equidistance line had to be adjusted in order to
attenuate the “cut-off effect” resulting from this special circumstance.
153
It must be
noted, however, that the Tribunal, in adopting a boundary line that was almost parallel to the T2-T3 segment of the Osimo Treaty line, specified that there was “no
question” of compensating Slovenia for its “boxed-in” condition, since the Tribunal
sought only to ensure “that in the drawing of the maritime boundary the particular
configuration of Cape Savudrija in relation to the Slovenian coast does not disproportionately exacerbate Slovenia’s boxed-in condition”.
154
149 Ibidem.
150 Those were the “squeezing effect”, “coastal concavity”, and the “cut-off effect”. See ibidem,
paras 964 ff.
151 Ibidem, para. 1011.
152 Ibidem, para. 1011. See also Map V at page 319 of the Final Award.
153 In addition to North Sea Continental Shelf, para. 89–90, the Tribunal refers to AT, Delimitation
of the Maritime Boundary between Guinea and Guinea Bissau, Decision, 14 February 1985, paras
103–104, and to ITLOS, Dispute Concerning Delimitation of the Maritime Boundary between
Bangladesh and Myanmar in the Bay of Bengal (Bangladesh/Myanmar), Judgment, 14 March
2012, paras 292–297.
154 Croatia/Slovenia, para. 1014. The line is shown on Map VI at page 323 of the Final Award.
A. Insolia
regard both boundary lines as “[not…] wholly consistent with the applicable rules
and principles of international law”.
149
As for the general configuration of the area to be delimited, the Tribunal makes
no mention of the specific aspect that, in 1969, led the Court to introduce the “noncut off” principle, that is, the fact that the relevant coast is concave. That aspect,
however, was relied on by Slovenia, and it may be said to underlie the various special circumstances invoked by that State.
150
In addition, the Tribunal “[did] not consider that the great difference between the lengths of the coastal fronts of Croatia
and Slovenia is a special circumstance that calls for a departure from the equidistance line”.
151
Therefore, the other element that in the North Sea Continental Shelf
cases justified an assessment of proportionality as a final factor to be taken into
account for the purposes of delimitation is absent here. At the same time, the aforesaid difference did not, in the eyes of the Tribunal, justify the consideration of proportionality as a special circumstance. Rather, the Tribunal identified another special
circumstance, one which was not invoked by the Parties and which, in the Tribunal’s
view, made it necessary to adopt a line departing from a strict equidistance line:
The Tribunal does, however, consider that certain features of the coastal configuration in the
present case produce an exaggeratedly adverse effect if the strict equidistance line is used,
and do constitute a special circumstance. That special circumstance is the fact that very
close to Point A the coastline of Croatia turns sharply southwards around Cape Savudrija,
so that the Croatian basepoints that control the equidistance line are located on a very small
stretch of coast whose general (north-facing) direction is markedly different from the general (southwest-facing) direction of much the greater part of the Croatian coastline (as illustrated on the following map), and deflect the equidistance line very significantly towards the
north, greatly exaggerating the “boxed-in” nature of Slovenia’s maritime zone.
152
For the Tribunal, the provisional equidistance line had to be adjusted in order to
attenuate the “cut-off effect” resulting from this special circumstance.
153
It must be
noted, however, that the Tribunal, in adopting a boundary line that was almost parallel to the T2-T3 segment of the Osimo Treaty line, specified that there was “no
question” of compensating Slovenia for its “boxed-in” condition, since the Tribunal
sought only to ensure “that in the drawing of the maritime boundary the particular
configuration of Cape Savudrija in relation to the Slovenian coast does not disproportionately exacerbate Slovenia’s boxed-in condition”.
154
149 Ibidem.
150 Those were the “squeezing effect”, “coastal concavity”, and the “cut-off effect”. See ibidem,
paras 964 ff.
151 Ibidem, para. 1011.
152 Ibidem, para. 1011. See also Map V at page 319 of the Final Award.
153 In addition to North Sea Continental Shelf, para. 89–90, the Tribunal refers to AT, Delimitation
of the Maritime Boundary between Guinea and Guinea Bissau, Decision, 14 February 1985, paras
103–104, and to ITLOS, Dispute Concerning Delimitation of the Maritime Boundary between
Bangladesh and Myanmar in the Bay of Bengal (Bangladesh/Myanmar), Judgment, 14 March
2012, paras 292–297.
154 Croatia/Slovenia, para. 1014. The line is shown on Map VI at page 323 of the Final Award.
A. Insolia