Uti possidetis and equidistance in land and maritime delimitations : Judgment of the International Court of Justice of 2002

Uti possidetis je načelo opće naravi koje se primjenjuje na delimitaciju (razgraničenje) izmeðu država ukoliko one nakon stjecanja neovisnosti nisu uspjele sklopiti nove ugovore o svojim granicama. Neke su države nastojale otkloniti primjenu toga načela usljed novih dogaðaja, ili temeljem njihovih jednostranih akata, pozivajući se na efektivnost vlasti koju su u nekom prostoru vršile. Kao kriterij razgraničenja nekih morskih prostora neki ugovorni propisi spominju crtu sredine uz posebne okolnosti. Ali članci 74. i 83. Konvencije UN o pravu mora iz 1982. godine u stvari ne sadrže nikakav kriterij razgraničenja gospodarskoga i epikontinentskog pojasa. U ovoj se raspravi analizira kako je spomenuta pitanja razriješio Međunarodni sud u svojoj presudi iz 2002. godine, i to u svjetlosti prijašnje međunarodne sudske i arbitražne prakse.Uti possidetis is a general principle which is applicable on delimitation of frontiers between States in case that after their acquisition of independence they were unable to conclude new treaties in this subject-matter. In the present case Nigeria tried partly to challenge this general principle invoking its acts of sovereignty and oil concessions it granted in some of the disputed areas. There was inter alia the question of primacy of effectivités over the treaties from colonial period. The Court dismissed all claims of this type. Nigeria furthermore claimed that two agreements reached by disputing parties on partial delimitation of their maritime areas after their independence (Yaounde II and Maroua declarations) were not in force. The Court dismissed this allegation too on the basis of rules of customary law as embodied in the 1949 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. In respect of the still unlimited areas of the exclusive economic zone and the continental shelf of the parties, it was Cameroon which attempted to obtain from the Court the delimitation line which encroaches the seaward projection from the Bioko island. This island situated in the Gulf of Guinea belongs to the Equatorial Guinea which was not a party to this dispute. The Court discarded this claim by defining the short relevant coastline of the disputing parties to which do not encroach the seaward projections of any third States. This Judgment further confirmed the method (or rule) of the equitable principles/relevant circumstances which is according to the Court very similar to the equidistance/special circumstances method applicable in delimitation of the territorial sea. It involves first the drawing an equidistance line, then considering whether there are factors calling for adjustment or shifting of that line in order to achieve an \u27\u27equitable result\u27\u27. Confirming this method the Court finally abandoned its previous doctrine on the so called \u27\u27equitable principles\u27\u27 as alleged principles and rules of international law, which formerly repudiated any use of equidistance line. That doctrine was first formulated in its 1969 Judgment on the North Sea Continental Shelf cases. This last Judgment of the International Court of Justice has strengthened the tendency in creation of a body of reliable principles and criteria for delimitation of all respective maritime areas between States. Their reasonable and unbiased application can lead to predictable results