ON THE APPLICABILITY OF THE UTI POSSIDETIS JURIS PRINCIPLE DURING DELIMITATION OF THE CASPIAN SEA AMONG THE LITTORAL STATES
Abstract
One of the Caspian region’s most problematic issues is determining the legal status of the Caspian Sea. The status of the Caspian Sea was first enforced in two agreements entered between Russia and Iran in 1921 and 1940. But the collapse of the U.S.S.R. and, as a result, the appearance of newly independent states on the Caspian coast (Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, and Turkmenistan) led to a change in the existing legal, as well as political, positions in the region. This was partially reflected in U.N. documents.1 The regime established as early as Soviet times no longer met the interests of the littoral states, particularly with respect to use of the economic resources of the Caspian’s seabed and its contiguous waters, which made re-examination of the issue obligatory.
At present, the countries of the region are divided on this issue, upholding two radically opposing viewpoints. Iran’s position, and to some extent Russia’s, is based on the fact that the Caspian Sea is a lake, the legal status of which was defined by the agreements of 1921 and 1940 which should be considered valid until new agreements are entered on this issue (the condominium thesis). However, the new littoral states (Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, and to a lesser extent Turkmenistan) refer to the legal mechanisms of territorial inheritance of the states based on the so-called uti possidetis, ita possideatis principle (as you possess, so may you possess), that is, the principle of succession of territories and boundaries.2 It enforces the state’s right to inherit the administrative borders they held at the time the colonial or totalitarian predecessor state collapsed.
In this article, we shall try to offer a legal analysis of the two above-mentioned positions, as well as examine the applicability of the uti possidetis juris principle to the littoral states.
Downloads
References
See: P. Tavernier, Le statut juridique de la mer Caspi-enne: mer ou lac? La pratique des États vue à travers les documents publiés par les Nations Unies, 1999, available at [http://
ww.ridi.org/adi/199910a1.htm#n2#n2], 11 February, 2007.
Ibid., § 14.
See: D. Allonsius, Le régime juridique de la mer Caspienne. Problèmes actuels de droit international public,L.G.D.J., Paris, 1997.
See: G. Gidel, Le droit international public de la mer. Tome I. Chateauroux: Etablissements Mellottée, 1932, p. 40.
See: E. Franckx, “Maritime Delimitation in the Caspian Sea: Legal Issues,” China Oceans Law Review 2006,No. 1, p. 2.
G. Gidel, op. cit., p. 48.
See: R. Meese, “La Mer Caspienne: Quelques problèmes actuels,” Note d’actualité, RGDIP 1999/2, p. 5, availa-ble at [http://members.aol.com/Rmeese75/Caspiennefinal.htm], 11 February, 2007.
See: E. Franckx, A. Razavi, “The Problem of Delimitation in the Caspian Sea,” in: Proc. of Int. Symposium on the Problems of Regional Seas, 12-14 May, 2001, Istanbul-Turkey, p. 2.
See: R. Meese, op. cit.
See: J. Salmon, Droit des Gens. Tome II. Édition partiellement revue par E. David, Bruxelles: Presses Universi-taires de Belgique, 20ème édition, 2006-2007, p. 256.
See: Nguyen Hong Thao et Préface de Laurent Luccini, Le Vietnam et ses différends maritimes dans la mer de Bien Dong (Mer de Chine Méridionale), Paris: Editions A. Pedone, 2004.
See: Collection of Decisions of 1992 of the International Hague Court—C.I.J., Affaire El Salvador/Honduras, fond,11 Septembre 1992, Recueil 1992, p. 558, par. 333, p. 559, par. 385, p. 598, par. 400; R.G.D.I.P., 1985, § 40, p. 503, la sen-tence arbitrale du 14 février 1985 dans l’affaire de la Délimitation de la frontière maritime Guinée/ Guinée Bissau.
Letter from Permanent Representative of the Russian Federation at the United Nations of 5 October, 1994 to the Secretary General. Numbered A/ 49 / 475, available at [http://daccessdds.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N94/386/79/PDF/N9438 679.pdf?OpenElement].
Letter from Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan to the U.N. numbered A/52/93 of 17 March, 1997, available at [http://
accessdds.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N97/072/44/PDF/N9707244.pdf?OpenElement]; also letter from Kazakhstan num-bered A/52/424 of 3 October, 1997, available at [http://daccessdds.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N97/262/63/PDF/
pdf?OpenElement], etc.
The Agreement on the Division of the Contiguous Areas of the Caspian Sea Signed between Azerbaijan and Russia on 23 September, 2002; The Agreement on the Division of the Ground of the Caspian Sea signed between Azerbaijan and Kazakhstan on 29 November, 2001 and the Protocol of 27 February, 2003 Applied to It; The Agreement on the Division of the North Part of the Caspian Sea Signed between Russia and Kazakhstan on 6 July, 1998 for the Application of the Sovereign Rights in the Utilization of the Ground of the Sea and the Protocol of 13 May, 2002 Applied to It; The Agree-ment on the Intersection Point of the Division of the Contiguous Areas of the Caspian Sea Signed between Azerbaijan,Kazakhstan and Russia on 14 May, 2003; The Framework Convention on the Environmental Protection of the Caspian Sea Signed in Tehran on 4 November, 2003; The First Meeting of the Caspian States on the Development of the Draft Proto-col on the Protection of the Caspian Sea from the Pollution from the Onshore Establishments and Activities of the Frame-work Convention on the Environmental Protection of the Caspian Sea was Held in Ashgabat on 24-25 January, 2005, avail-able at [http: www.cpf-az.org/cgi-bin/e-cms].
Nguyen Hong Thao et Préface de Laurent Luccini, op. cit., p. 162.
See: Collection of Decisions of 1992 of the International Hague Court—C.I.J., Affaire El Salvador/Honduras, fond,11 septembre 1992, Recueil 1992, p. 558, par. 333, p. 559, par. 385, p. 598, par. 400.
See, for example: Nguyen Hong Thao, op. cit.
See: J. Salmon, op. cit., p. 347.
Collection of Decisions of the International Hague Court of 1986—C.I.J., Affaire du différend frontalier Burkina Faso/Mali, fond, 22 décembre 1986, Recueil 1986, p. 568, par. 30.
M.G. Kohen, L’uti possidetis revisité: l’arrêt du 11 septembre 1992 dans l’affaire El Salvador/Honduras, RGDIP,1993, p. 942.
See: International Law Reports, 1951, p. 161 et s. ICLQ, 1952, p. 247.
See: Letter from Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan A/52/93 (of 17 March, 1997), sheet of documents distributed in the U.N.
See: Documents d’actualité internationale n° 19. 1er octobre 1998, pp. 746-747.
See: E. Franckx, op. cit., p. 37.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2009 Author
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
You are free to:
- Share — copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format for any purpose, even commercially.
- Adapt — remix, transform, and build upon the material for any purpose, even commercially.
- The licensor cannot revoke these freedoms as long as you follow the license terms.
Under the following terms:
- Attribution — You must give appropriate credit , provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made . You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use.
- No additional restrictions — You may not apply legal terms or technological measures that legally restrict others from doing anything the license permits.
Notices:
You do not have to comply with the license for elements of the material in the public domain or where your use is permitted by an applicable exception or limitation .
No warranties are given. The license may not give you all of the permissions necessary for your intended use. For example, other rights such as publicity, privacy, or moral rights may limit how you use the material.
