Hostname: page-component-5b777bbd6c-2c8nx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-06-18T06:18:53.983Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A critical Analysis of the ICJ’s Identification of Customary International Law in the 2023 Judgment of Nicaragua v. Colombia

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 May 2025

Lingjie KONG Open the ORCID record for Lingjie KONG [Opens in a new window]  and
Long CHEN
Lingjie KONG*
Affiliation:
Professor of international law at China Institute of Boundary and Ocean Studies, Wuhan University, Wuhan, China
Long CHEN
Affiliation:
LLM in international law at China Institute of Boundary and Ocean Studies, Wuhan University, Wuhan, China
*
Corresponding author: Lingjie Kong; Email: konglingjie@whu.edu.cn
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In the 2023 judgment of Nicaragua v. Colombia, the International Court of Justice ruled that, under customary international law, a State’s entitlement to a continental shelf beyond 200 nautical miles from its baselines is not permitted to extend within 200 nautical miles from the baselines of another State. In identifying this customary rule, the Court did not apply the two-element approach. The state practice relied upon by the Court to identify the general practice is not sufficiently widespread, representative, or consistent. The opinio juris is inferred from such state practice, which is not necessarily driven by a sense of legal obligation. The Court’s assertion of the customary rule constitutes, in effect, a rewriting of the relevant provisions of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, amounting to a legislative exercise.

Keywords

customary international lawextended continental shelfNicaragua v. Colombiathe International Court of Justice
Type
Article
Information
Asian Journal of International Law , First View , pp. 1 - 19
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2025. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of The Asian Society for International Law.

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

1 Question of the Delimitation of the Continental Shelf between Nicaragua and Colombia beyond 200 Nautical Miles from the Nicaraguan Coast (Nicaragua v. Colombia), Judgment, [2023] I.C.J. (hereinafter, Nicaragua v. Colombia Case).

2 Nicaragua v. Colombia Case, supra note 1 at 34, para. 104.

3 Hilde WOKER, “Preliminary Reflections on the ICJ Judgment in Question of the Delimitation of the Continental Shelf between Nicaragua and Colombia beyond 200 Nautical Miles from the Nicaraguan Coast (Nicaragua v. Colombia) of 13 July 2023” (21 July 2023), online: EJIL:Talk! www.ejiltalk.org/preliminary-reflections-on-the-icj-judgment-in-question-of-the-delimitation-of-the-continental-shelf-between-nicaragua-and-colombia-beyond-200-nautical-miles-from-the-nicaraguan-coast-nicaragua-v-co/; All websites accessed on 15 August 2024, unless otherwise mentioned.

4 Territorial and Maritime Dispute (Nicaragua v. Colombia), Judgment of 19 November 2012, I.C.J. Rep. 624 (hereinafter, Territorial and Maritime Disputes Case).

5 Territorial and Maritime Dispute Case, supra note 4 at 719, para. 251.

6 Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf, “Submission of the Republic of Nicaragua to the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf” (1 July 2013), online: CLCS www.un.org/Depts/los/clcs_new/submissions_files/nic66_13/clcs66_2013.pdf.

7 Nicaragua v. Colombia Case, supra note 1 at 15, paras. 25–6.

8 Ibid., at 8, para. 10.

9 Ibid., at 8, para. 14.

10 Ibid., at 29, para. 77.

11 Nicaragua v. Colombia Case, supra note 1, Separate Opinion of Judge Xue; Dissenting Opinion of Judge Tomka; Dissenting Opinion of Judge Robinson; Dissenting Opinion of Judge Charlesworth; Dissenting Opinion of Judge Ad Hoc Skotnikov.

12 Nicaragua v. Colombia Case, supra note 1, Dissenting Opinion of Judge Tomka, at 2–3, paras. 4–8.

13 Yoshifumi TANAKA, “Recent Developments in the Jurisprudence Concerning the Delimitation of the Continental Shelf Beyond 200 Nautical Miles: Analysis of the Mauritius/Maldives and Nicaragua v. Colombia Cases” (2024) 103 International Law Studies 74; Xinjun ZHANG and Xidi CHEN, “The 2022 ICJ Judgment in Nicaragua v. Colombia: Towards a Theory of Exclusivity in Allocating Rights and Jurisdiction between the Coastal and Other States?” (2024) 23 (2) Chinese Journal of International Law 223; Christopher WARD, “Question of the Delimitation of the Continental Shelf Between Nicaragua and Colombia Beyond 200 Nautical Miles from the Nicaraguan Coast (Nicar. v. Colom.)” (2024) 118 (2) American Journal of International Law 324; Matei ALEXIANU, “The Nicaragua v. Colombia Continental Shelf Judgment: Short But Significant” (29 September 2023), online: ASIL Insights https://www.asil.org/insights/volume/27/issue/9; Holly LEUNG, “The Extended Continental Shelf in Nicaragua v Colombia: Identifying a Customary Rule Based on CLCS Submissions?” (2024) 55 (1-2) Ocean Development & International Law 206 at 207–8.

14 Vito DE LUCIA, “On the Question of opinio juris in Nicaragua vs. Colombia (Judgement 13 July 2023)” (3 August 2023), online: EJIL:Talk! www.ejiltalk.org/on-the-question-of-opinio-juris-in-nicaragua-vs-colombia-judgement-13-july-2023/; Hilde Woker, supra note 3; Keshav SOMANI, “The ICJ’s Judgment in Nicaragua v. Colombia: Back to the Basics” (16 August 2023), online: Opinio Juris https://opiniojuris.org/2023/08/16/the-icjs-judgment-in-nicaragua-v-colombia-back-to-the-basics/.

15 Nicaragua v. Colombia Case, supra note 1 at 28–9, para. 76.

16 Ibid.

17 Delimitation of the maritime boundary in the Bay of Bengal (Bangladesh/Myanmar), Judgment of 14 March 2012, ITLOS, Rep. 4 at 120–1, paras. 471–6 (hereinafter, Bay of Bengal Case); Maritime Delimitation in the Indian Ocean (Somalia v. Kenya), Judgment of 12 October 2021, I.C.J. Rep. 206 at 270–7, paras. 178–97 (hereinafter, Somalia v. Kenya Case); Dispute concerning delimitation of the maritime boundary between Mauritius and Maldives in the Indian Ocean (Mauritius v. Maldives), Judgment of 28 April 2023, ITLOS, Case No.28 at 97–102, paras. 257–75 (hereinafter, Mauritius v. Maldives Case).

18 Statute of the International Court of Justice (entered into force 24 October 1945), art. 59.

19 Malcolm D. EVANS and Nicholas A. IOANNIDES, “A Commentary on the 2023 Nicaragua v. Colombia Case” (4 August 2023), online: EJIL:Talk! www.ejiltalk.org/a-commentary-on-the-2023-nicaragua-v-colombia-case/; Xuexia LIAO, “Is There a Hierarchical Relationship between Natural Prolongation and Distance in the Continental Shelf Delimitation?” (2018) 33 The International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law 79 at 83.

20 Hugh THIRLWAY, The Sources of International Law, 2nd ed. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2019) at 64.

21 Michael WOOD and Omri SENDER, Identification of Customary International Law (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2024) at 3.

22 Nicaragua v. Colombia Case, supra note 1 at 22, para. 46; Continental Shelf (Libyan Arab Jamahiriya v. Malta), Judgment of 3 June 1985, I.C.J. Rep. 13 at 29–30, para. 27 (hereinafter, Libya v. Malta Case).

23 Fernando Lusa BORDIN, “A Glass Half Full? The Character, Function and Value of the Two-Element Approach to Identifying Customary International Law” (2019) 21 (3–4) International Community Law Review 283 at 285; Omri SENDER and Michael WOOD, “A Mystery No Longer? Opinio Juris and Other Theoretical Controversies Associated with Customary International Law” (2017) 50 (3) Israel Law Review 299 at 305–6.

24 Statute of the International Court of Justice, supra note 18, art. 38(1)(b).

25 Birgit SCHLUTTER, Developments in Customary International Law: Theory and the Practice of the International Court of Justice and the International ad hoc Criminal Tribunals for Rwanda and Yugoslavia (Leiden/Boston: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2010) at 13.

26 International Law Commission, “International Law Commission, Draft Conclusions on Identification of Customary International Law, With Commentaries” (hereinafter, ILC Draft Conclusions), UN Doc. A/73/10 (2018), at 124, online: ILC https://legal.un.org/ilc/texts/instruments/english/commentaries/1_13_2018.pdf.

27 Ibid., at 126.

28 Omri SENDER and Michael WOOD, “Custom’s Bright Future: The Continuing Importance of Customary International Law” in C. BRADLEY, Custom’s Future: International Law in a Changing World (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2016) at 365–6; Bordin, supra note 23 at 285.

29 Karol WOLFKE, Custom in Present International Law, 2nd ed. (Leiden/Boston: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 1993) at 40–1; Sender and Wood, supra note 23 at 305–6.

30 Bordin, supra note 23 at 290–1; Thirlway, supra note 20 at 71.

31 ILC Draft Conclusions, supra note 26 at 125.

32 Nicaragua v. Colombia Case, supra note 1 at 27–8, paras. 70–6.

33 Nicaragua v. Colombia Case, supra note 1, Public Sitting, [2022] CR 2022/27, at 16–21; Nicaragua v. Colombia Case, supra note 1, Public Sitting, [2022] CR 2022/28, at 18–23.

34 Nicaragua v. Colombia Case, supra note 1 at 29, para. 77.

35 Nicaragua v. Colombia Case, supra note 1, Dissenting Opinion of Judge Tomka, at 17, para. 58.

36 ILC Draft Conclusions, supra note 26 at 127.

37 Ibid., at 128–9.

38 Nicaragua v. Colombia Case, supra note 1 at 29, para. 77.

39 Ibid., at 24, 26, paras. 57, 67.

40 Jurisdictional Immunities of the State (Germany v. Italy: Greece intervening), Judgment of 3 February 2012, I.C.J. Rep. 99 at 122–3, 128–35, paras. 55, 66–78 (hereinafter, State Immunity Case).

41 Thirlway, supra note 20 at 74; Michael WOOD, “The Present Position within the ILC on the Topic ‘Identification of Customary International Law’: in Partial Response to Sienho YEE, ‘Report on the ILC Project on ‘Identification of Customary International Law’’” (2016) 15 Chinese Journal of International Law 3 at 8.

42 ILC Draft Conclusions, supra note 26 at 130.

43 Ibid., at 133.

44 Maurice H. MENDELSON, “The Formation of Customary International Law” (1998) 272 Recueil des cours de l’Académie de La Haye en ligne 155 at 197.

45 ILC Draft Conclusions, supra note 26 at 134–5.

46 Jörg KAMMERHOFER, “Uncertainty in the Formal Sources of International Law: Customary International Law and Some of Its Problems” (2004) 15 (3) European Journal of International Law 523 at 530–1; Sender and Wood, supra note 21 at 308.

47 ILC Draft Conclusions, supra note 26 at 136.

48 Ibid., at 126.

49 Katie A. JOHNSTON, “The Nature and Context of Rules and the Identification of Customary International Law” (2021) 32 (4) European Journal of International Law 1167 at 1172–4.

50 North Sea Continental Shelf (Federal Republic of Germany v. Denmark; Federal Republic of Germany v. Netherlands), Judgment of 20 February 1969, I.C.J. Rep. 3 at 51, para. 96 (hereinafter, North Sea Continental Shelf Case); Continental Shelf (Tunisia v. Libyan Arab Jamahiriya), Judgment of 24 February 1982, I.C.J. Rep. 18 at 61, para. 73 (hereinafter, Tunisia v. Libyan Arab Jamahiriya Case); Maritime Delimitation in the Black Sea (Romania v. Ukraine), Judgment of 3 February 2009, I.C.J. Rep. 61 at 89, para. 77 (hereinafter, Black Sea Case).

51 Convention on the Continental Shelf, 29 April 1958, 499 U.N.T.S 311 (entered into force 10 June 1964), art. 2(3); United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, 10 December 1982, 1833 U.N.T.S. 396 (entered into force on 16 November 1994) [UNCLOS], art. 77(3).

52 Evans and Ioannides, supra note 19; Hilde WOKER, “Challenging the Notion of a ‘Single Continental Shelf’” (2023) 54 (4) Ocean Development & International Law 375 at 381–2; Nicaragua v. Colombia Case, supra note 1, Dissenting Opinion of Judge Robinson, at 1, para. 2; Ward, supra note 13 at 330–1; Alexianu, supra note 13 at 5–6.

53 Panos MERKOURIS, Jörg KAMMERHOFER and Noora ARAJÄRVI, eds., The Theory, Practice, and Interpretation of Customary International Law (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2022) at 337–40.

54 North Sea Continental Shelf, supra note 50, Separate Opinion of Judge Fouad Ammoun, at 130

55 Fisheries Jurisdiction (United Kingdom v. Iceland), Judgment of 25 July 1974, I.C.J. Rep. 3 at 26, para. 58 (hereinafter, Fisheries Jurisdiction Case).

56 Nicaragua v. Colombia Case, supra note 1, Separate Opinion of Judge Xue, at 16, para. 38; Nicaragua v. Colombia Case, supra note 1, Public Sitting, [2022], CR 2022/27, at 20, para. 13.

57 Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf, “Partial Submission to the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf, pursuant to Article 76, paragraph 8 of the United Nations on the Law of the Sea in respect of the Area of Saint-Pierre-et-Miquelon” (16 April 2014), at 5, online: CLCS www.un.org/Depts/los/clcs_new/submissions_files/fra72_14/SPM_Summary_EN_April2014.pdf; Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf, “Partial Submission of Canada to the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf regarding its Continental Shelf in the Atlantic Ocean” (6 December 2013), at 13, online: CLCS www.un.org/Depts/los/clcs_new/submissions_files/can70_13/es_can_en.pdf.

58 Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf, “Submission made by the Gabonese Republic for the Extension of its Continental Shelf beyond 200 Nautical Miles pursuant to Article 76 of the United Nations on the Law of the Sea” (10 April 2012), online: CLCS www.un.org/depts/los/clcs_new/submissions_files/gab60_12/Executive_Summary_eng. pdf.

59 Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf, “Communications received with regard to the submission made by Gabon to the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf”, Republic of the Congo, 13 July 2021, online: CLCS www.un.org/Depts/los/clcs_new/submissions_files/gab60_12/20210713CogNvUn001E.pdf.

60 Mendelson, supra note 44 at 219.

61 ILC Draft Conclusions, supra note 26 at 136.

62 Ibid., at 136–7.

63 Nicaragua v. Colombia Case, supra note 1, Public Sitting, 7 December 2022, CR 2022/27, at 16–20, paras. 7–12; Nicaragua v. Colombia Case, supra note 1, Public Sitting, 6 December 2022, CR 2022/26, at 35–42, paras. 12–47.

64 Fisheries Jurisdiction Case, supra note 55 at 26, para. 58.

65 State Immunity Case, supra note 40 at 130–4, paras. 70–6.

66 Tunisia v. Libyan Arab Jamahiriya Case, supra note 50 at 74, para. 100.

67 Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf, “Outer Limit of the Continental Shelf Argentine Submission” (21 April 2009), at 21, online: CLCS www.un.org/Depts/los/clcs_new/submissions_files/arg25_09/arg2009e_summary_eng.pdf; Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf, “Partial Submission of Chile to the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf” (28 February 2022), at 14, online: CLCS www.un.org/Depts/los/clcs_new/submissions_files/chl_89_2022/2022-CHL-WCAT-ES-eng_secured.pdf.

68 ILC Draft Conclusions, supra note 26 at 134–5.

69 Ibid., at 135–6.

70 Mendelson, supra note 44 at 212.

71 UNCLOS, art. 76(10).

72 Alex ELFERINK and Constance JOHNSON, “Outer Limits of the Continental Shelf and Disputed Areas: State Practice Concerning Article 76(10) of the LOS Convention” (2006) 21 (4) The International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law 461 at 463–4.

73 Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf, “Continental Shelf Submission of the Federal Republic of Somalia Executive Summary” (21 July 2014), at 11, online: CLCS www.un.org/Depts/los/clcs_new/submissions_files/som74_14/Somalia_Executive_Summary_2014.pdf.

74 Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf, “Continental Shelf Submission of the Federal Republic of Somalia Executive Summary Amended” (16 July 2015), at 8–9, online: CLCS www.un.org/Depts/los/clcs_new/submissions_files/som74_14/2015-07-16_SOM-DOC-001.pdf.

75 Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf, “Partial Submission to the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf, pursuant to Article 76, paragraph 8 of the United Nations on the Law of the Sea in respect of the Area of French Guiana and New Caledonia” (22 May 2007), at 3, online: CLCS www.un.org/Depts/los/clcs_new/submissions_files/fra07/fra_executivesummary_2007.pdf; Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf, “Joint Submission to the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf by Tuvalu, the Republic of France and New Zealand (Tokelau) Executive Summary” (7 December 2012), at 4, 7, online: CLCS www.un.org/Depts/los/clcs_new/submissions_files/tft62_12/tft_exsum_doc.pdf; Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf, “Partial Submission to the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf, pursuant to Article 76, paragraph 8 of the United Nations on the Law of the Sea in respect of the area of French Polynesia” (6 April 2018), at 4, online: CLCS www.un.org/Depts/los/clcs_new/submissions_files/fra79_18/Part1_Summary_French_Polynesia_EN.pdf.

76 Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf, “Partial Submission to the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf, pursuant to Article 76, paragraph 8 of the United Nations on the Law of the Sea in respect of the area of the French Antilles and the Kerguelen Islands” (5 February 2009), at 5, online: CLCS www.un.org/Depts/los/clcs_new/submissions_files/fra09/fra_executivesummary_2009.pdf; Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf, “Continental Shelf Submission of Government Barbados Executive Summary” (8 May 2008), at 3, online: CLCS www.un.org/Depts/los/clcs_new/submissions_files/brb08/brb08_executive_summary.pdf.

77 Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf, “Submission by the Republic of Maldives to the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf Executive Summary” (26 July 2010), at 10, 16, online: CLCS www.un.org/Depts/los/clcs_new/submissions_files/mdv53_10/MAL-ES-DOC.pdf.

78 Mauritius v. Maldives Case, supra note 17 at 100, para. 267.

79 ILC Draft Conclusions, supra note 26 at 134.

80 Ibid., at 137.

81 Colombian-Peruvian Asylum Case, Judgment of 20 November 1950, I.C.J. Rep. 266 at 277.

82 Fisheries Case (United Kingdom v. Norway), Judgement of 18 December 1951, I.C.J. Rep. 116 at 131/

83 Nicaragua v. Colombia Case, supra note 1, Dissenting Opinion of Judge Tomka, at 15, para. 49.

84 ILC Draft Conclusions, supra note 26 at 138.

85 Ibid.

86 Ibid., at 140.

87 Ibid., at 140–1.

88 Sienho YEE, “The News That Opinio Juris Is Not a Necessary Element of Customary [International] Law Is Greatly Exaggerated” (2000) 43 German Yearbook of International Law 227 at 237–8.

89 ILC Draft Conclusions, supra note 26 at 128.

90 Mendelson, supra note 44 at 271–3; Johnston, supra note 47 at 1175.

91 Nicaragua v. Colombia Case, supra note 1, Dissenting Opinion of Judge Ad Hoc Skotnikov, at 3; Nicaragua v. Colombia Case, supra note 1, Dissenting Opinion of Judge Robinson, at 3, para. 9.

92 Nicaragua v. Colombia Case, supra note 1, Dissenting Opinion of Judge Ad Hoc Skotnikov, at 3, para. 16.

93 Lotus, Judgment No. 9, [1927], P.C.I.J., Series A, No. 10, at 28.

94 Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf, “Communications with regard to the submission made by the Republic of Korea to the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf”, Japan, 11 January 2013, online: CLCS www.un.org/Depts/los/clcs_new/submissions_files/kor65_12/jpn_re_kor_11_01_2013.pdf; Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf, “Communications with regard to the submission made by China to the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf”, Japan, 28 December 2012, online: CLCS www.un.org/Depts/los/clcs_new/submissions_files/chn63_12/jpn_re_chn_28_12_2012.pdf.

95 Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf, “Communications with regard to the submission made by China to the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf”, Republic of Korea, 23 January 2013, online: CLCS www.un.org/Depts/los/clcs_new/submissions_files/kor65_12/kor_re_jpn_23_01_2013.pdf.

96 Leung, supra note 13 at 214.

97 Rules of Procedure of the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf, 17 April 2008, CLCS/40/Rev.1, rule 46, annex 1 5(a).

98 Signe Veierud BUSCH, Establishing Continental Shelf Limits beyond 200 Nautical Miles by the Coastal State: A Right of Involvement for Other States? (Leiden/Boston: Brill Nijhoff Publishers, 2016) at 99–102; 107–12; Oystein JENSEN, The Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf: Law and Legitimacy (Leiden/Boston: Brill Nijhoff Publishers, 2014) at 65–6.

99 Liao, supra note 19 at 95–6.

100 Arbitration between Barbados and the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago, Award of 11 April 2006, at 53–5, 109, paras. 174–8, 367.

101 Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf, “Submission to the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf, pursuant to Article 76, paragraph 8 of the United Nations on the Law of the Sea, Republic of Trinidad and Tobago, Executive Summary” (12 May 2009), at 17–18, online: CLCS www.un.org/Depts/los/clcs_new/submissions_files/tto49_09/tto2009executive_summary.pdf.

102 ILC Draft Conclusions, supra note 26 at 139.

103 Nicaragua v. Colombia Case, supra note 1, Separate Opinion of Judge Xue, at 16, para. 40.

104 Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf, “Submission made by the Russian Federation to the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf” (20 December 2001), online: CLCS www.un.org/Depts/los/clcs_new/submissions_files/rus01/RUS_CLCS_01_2001_LOS_2.jpg; Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf, “Submission made by the Kingdom of Norway to the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf, Executive Summary” (27 November 2006), at 13, online: CLCS www.un.org/depts/los/clcs_new/submissions_files/nor06/nor_exec_sum.pdf.

105 Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf, “Partial Revised Submission of the Russian Federation to the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf, Executive Summary” (3 August 2015), at 22–3, online: CLCS www.un.org/Depts/los/clcs_new/submissions_files/rus01_rev15/2015_08_03_Exec_Summary_English.pdf.

106 Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf, “Submission to the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf, pursuit to Article 76, paragraph 8 of the United Nations on the Law of the Sea, The Republic of Palau, Executive Summary” (8 May 2009), at 8, online: CLCS www.un.org/Depts/los/clcs_new/submissions_files/plw41_09/plw2009executivesummary.pdf.

107 Treaty between the Federated States of Micronesia and the Republic of Palau Concerning Maritime Boundaries and Cooperation on Related Matters (with annex and map), 16 July 2006, online: https://treaties.un.org/doc/Publication/UNTS/No%20Volume/54767/Part/I-54767-08000002804c7001.pdf. [FSM-PALAU].

108 Nicaragua v. Colombia Case, supra note 1, Dissenting Opinion of Judge Charlesworth, at 11–12, paras. 31–4.

109 Somalia v. Kenya Case, supra note 17 at 248–51, paras. 119–25; Black Sea Case, supra note 49 at 101–3, paras. 115–22.

110 Woker, supra note 52 at 388–9.

111 Libya v. Malta Case, supra note 22 at 33, para. 33.

112 Case concerning Right of Passage over Indian Territory (Merits), Judgment of 12 April 1960, I.C.J. Rep. 6 at 38–9.

113 Mauritius v. Maldives Case, supra note 17 at 100, para. 267.

114 Ibid., at 98, para. 260.

115 Ibid., at 99, para. 264.

116 Nicaragua v. Colombia Case, supra note 1, Separate Opinion of Judge Iwasawa, at 3, para. 12.

117 Liao, supra note 19 at 103–4; Nicaragua v. Colombia Case, supra note 1, Dissenting Opinion of Judge Tomka, at 16, para. 53.

118 Nicaragua v. Colombia Case, supra note 1, Dissenting Opinion of Judge Robinson, at 4.

119 North Sea Continental Shelf Case, supra note 50 at 43–4, paras. 76–7; Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons Case, Advisory Opinion, [1996] I.C.J. Rep. 226 at 253–4, paras. 63–7.

120 Delimitation of the Maritime Boundary in the Gulf of Maine Area (Canada v. United States of America), Judgment of 12 October 1984, I.C.J. Rep. 246 at 299, para. 111; Nicaragua v. Colombia Case, supra note 1 at 29, para. 77.

121 Evans and Ioannides, supra note 19.

122 Woker, supra note 52 at 381–2.

123 Hilde WOKER, “A New Constraint to the Entitlement of a Continental Shelf beyond 200 Nautical Miles? Implications of the Recent Case Law” (2024) The International Journal of Marine and Costal Law 1 at 18; Nicaragua v. Colombia Case, supra note 1, Dissenting Opinion of Judge Robinson, at 1, para. 2.