Classification of Maritime Disputes and Modern Legal Means of their Resolution

A review of scientific articles published over the past 15 years in leading foreign scientific journals on international law demonstrates the gradual improvement of legal means for the settlement of maritime disputes between the states.
Aim. Identification of the features for application of the law of the sea norms targeted on the resolution of maritime disputes that develop in the modern international system.
Tasks. Development of the classification of maritime disputes, analysis of the jurisdiction of the judicial authorities competent to resolve maritime disputes, characterization of the provisions of international agreements and customs of the law of the sea in the resolution of maritime disputes by the International Court of Justice of the United Nations (ICJ), the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS) and the Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague (PCA).
Methods. Discourse analysis of the most authoritative publications on the issue of resolving maritime disputes, a formal legal analysis of the norms and customs of maritime law, as well as a comparative legal study of judicial and arbitration practice in resolving interstate maritime disputes. Law enforcement practice on maritime disputes allows to characterize the subject of modern interstate maritime disputes; critically assess the fairness of decisions of international courts; to analyze the problems of enforceability of judicial and arbitral awards in the framework of the procedures for the settlement of maritime disputes provided for in the 1982 UN Convention on the Law of the Sea.
Results. Reasonable decisions of the International Court of Justice, the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea and the Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague are usually implemented by the states parties to the 1982 UN Convention on the Law of the Sea. Protection of the marine environment as well as prompt release of ships and crews from arrest have become a modern legal reality due to the effectiveness of the legal mechanism for resolving interstate maritime disputes. Territorial maritime disputes cause significant difficulties at all stages of their resolution, which is due to their political nature and the efforts of states to protect their national interests.
Conclusion. The resolution of maritime territorial disputes requires more flexibility from the parties, an international agreement between the parties to the dispute on the procedure for its consideration, as well as the use of conciliation procedures to work out a compromise solution to the dispute.

1. Acikgonul Y. E. Reflections on the Principle of Non-Cut off: A Growing Concept in Maritime Boundary Delimitation Law // Ocean Development & International Law. 2016. Vol. 47. Iss. 1. P. 52–71. DOI:10.1080/00908320.2016.1124485

2. Anderson D. H. Bay of Bengal Maritime Boundary // American Journal of International Law. 2015. Vol. 109. Iss. 1. P. 146–154. DOI:10.5305/amerjintelaw.109.1.0146

3. Anderson D. H. Delimitation of the Maritime Boundary in the Bay of Bengal Bangladesh/Myanmar // American Journal of International Law. 2012. Vol. 106. Iss. 4. P. 817–824. DOI:10.5305/amerjintelaw.106.4.0817

4. Beckman R. The UN Convention on the Law of the Sea and the Maritime Disputes in the South China Sea // American Journal of International Law. 2013. Vol. 107. Iss. 1. P. 142–163. DOI:10.5305/amerjintelaw.107.1.0142

5. Bonafé B. Maritime Delimitation in the Indian Ocean // American Journal of International Law. 2017. Vol. 111. Iss. 3. P. 725–731. DOI:10.1017/ajil.2017.86

6. Caffi M. T. I. Peru v. Chile: The International Court of Justice Decides on the Status of the Maritime Boundary // Chinese Journal of International Law. 2014. Vol. 13. Iss. 4. P. 741–762. DOI:10.1093/chinesejil/jmu037

7. Chircop A., Dzidzornu D., Oguamanam C. Ocean Law Reform: A Multi-level Comparative Law Analysis of Nigerian Maritime Zone Legislation // Marine Policy. 2016. Vol. 67. P. 60–75. DOI:10.1016/j.marpol.2016.01.012

8. Churchill R. Dispute Settlement in the Law of the Sea: Survey for 2011 // The International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law. 2012. Vol. 27. P. 517–551. DOI:10.1163/15718085-12341236

9. Churchill R. Dispute Settlement in the Law of the Sea: Survey for 2012 // The International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law. 2013. Vol. 28. P. 563–614. DOI:10.1163/15718085-12341293

10. Churchill R. Dispute Settlement in the Law of the Sea: Survey for 2014 // The International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law. 2015. Vol. 30. P. 585–653. DOI:10.1163/15718085-12341372

11. Churchill R. Dispute Settlement in the Law of the Sea: Survey for 2015. Part I // The International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law. 2016. Vol. 31. P. 555-582. DOI:10.1163/15718085-12341420

12. Churchill R. Dispute Settlement in the Law of the Sea: Survey for 2015. Part II and 2016 // The International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law 2017. Vol. 32. P. 379–426. DOI:10.1163/15718085-13230001

13. Churchill R. Dispute Settlement in the Law of the Sea: Survey for 2017 // The International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law. 2018. Vol. 33. DOI:10.1163/15718085-12334022

14. Churchill R. Dispute Settlement in the Law of the Sea: Survey for 2018 // The International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law. 2019. Vol. 34. P. 1–32. DOI:10.1163/15718085-23441112

15. Churchill R. Dispute Settlement in the Law of the Sea: Survey for 2019 // The International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law. 2020. Vol. 35. P. 1–39. DOI:10.1163/15718085-BJA10037

16. Churchill R. Dispute Settlement in the Law of the Sea: Survey for 2020 // The International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law. 2021. Vol. 1–35. DOI:10.1163/15718085-bja10059

17. Churchill R. The Bangladesh / Myanmar Case: Continuity and Novelty in the Law of Maritime Boundary Delimitation // Cambridge Journal of International and Comparative Law. 2012. Vol. 1. P. 137–152. DOI:10.7574/cjicl.01.01.3

18. Damrosch L. F. Military Activities in the UNCLOS Compulsory Dispute Settlement System: Implications of the South China Sea Arbitration for U. S. Ratification of UNCLOS // American Journal of International Law. 2016. Vol. 110. P. 273–278. DOI:10.1017/S2398772300009156

19. Davenport T. Southeast Asian Approaches to Maritime Boundaries // Asian Journal of International Law. 2014. Vol. 4. Iss. 2. P. 309–357. DOI:10.1017/S2044251313000313

20. Degan V.-D. Pravna narav pomorskog dobra. (Legal Nature of the Maritime Domain) // Poredbeno pomorsko pravo. 2017. No. 171. P. 5–18. (In Croatian)

21. Degan V.-D. Consolidation of Legal Principles on Maritime Delimitation: Implications for the Dispute between Slovenia and Croatia in the North Adriatic // Chinese Journal of International Law. 2007. Vol. 6. Iss. 3. P. 601–634. DOI:10.1093/chinesejil/jmm039

22. Degan V.-D. The Value of the Manila Declaration on International Dispute Settlement in a Case in Which the Philippines is a Party // Chinese Journal of International Law. 2012. Vol. 11. Iss. 1. P. 5–11. DOI:10.1093/chinesejil/jms002

23. Dupuy F., Dupuy P. A Legal Analysis of China’s Historic Rights Claim in the South China Sea // American Journal of International Law. 2013. Vol. 107. Iss. 1. P. 124–141. DOI:10.5305/amerjintelaw.107.1.0124

24. Feitosa Ventura V. A. M. Sovereignty and Jurisdiction in the Law of the Sea. In: Environmental Jurisdiction in the Law of the Sea. Springer, Cham. 2020. DOI:10.1007/978-3-030-50543-1_4

25. Franckx E., Benatar M. Dots and Lines in the South China Sea: Insights from the Law of Map Evidence // Asian Journal of International Law. 2012. Vol. 2. Iss. 1. P. 89–118. DOI:10.1017/S2044251311000117

26. Franckx E., Benatar M. Introduction: The South China Sea: An International Law Perspective // The International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law. 2017. Vol. 32. Iss. 2. P. 193–197. DOI:10.1163/15718085-12322061

27. Grant T. D. Annexation of Crimea // American Journal of International Law. 2015. Vol. 109. Iss. 1. P. 68–95. DOI:10.5305/amerjintelaw.109.1.0068

28. Grossman N. Territorial and Maritime Dispute // American Journal of International Law 2013. Vol. 107. Iss. 2. P. 396–403. DOI:10.5305/amerjintelaw.107.2.0396

29. Guggisberg S., Jaeckel A., Stephens T. Transparency in Fisheries Governance: Achievements to Date and Challenges Ahead. Marine Policy 2021. DOI:10.1016/j.marpol.2021.104639

30. Jain A. G. Maritime Dispute (Peru v. Chile) // American Journal of International Law. 2015. Vol. 109. Iss. 2. P. 379–386. DOI:10.5305/amerjintelaw.109.2.0379

31. Jessup P. С. Norwegian Maritime Courts in England // American Journal of International Law. 1942. Vol. 36. Iss. 4. P. 653-657. DOI:10.2307/2192761

32. Jessup P. С. The Palmas Island Arbitration // American Journal of International Law. 1928. Vol. 22. P. 739–740.

33. Kałduński M., Wasilewski T. The International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea on Maritime Delimitation: The Bangladesh v. Myanmar Case // Ocean Development & International Law. 2014. Vol. 45. Iss. 2. P. 123– 170. DOI:10.1080/00908320.2014.898920

34. Kim S. K. China and Japan Maritime Disputes in the East China Sea: A Note on Recent Developments // Ocean Development & International Law. 2012. Vol. 43. Iss. 3. P. 296–308. DOI:10.1080/00908320.2012.698931

35. Klein N. Expansions and Restrictions in the UNCLOS Dispute Settlement Regime: Lessons from Recent Decisions // Chinese Journal of International Law. 2016. Vol. 15. Iss. 2. P. 403–415. DOI:10.1093/chinesejil/jmw028

36. Klein N. The Vicissitudes of Dispute Settlement under the Law of the Sea Convention // The International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law. 2017. Vol. 32. Iss. 2. P. 332–363. DOI:10.1163/15718085-12322045

37. Kraska J. The “ARA Libertad” (Argentina v. Ghana) // The American Journal of International Law. 2013. Vol. 107. Iss. 2. P. 404–410. DOI:10.5305/amerjintelaw.107.2.0404

38. Lathrop C., Roach J., Rothwell D. (CoalterG. Eds) Baselines under the International Law of the Sea. Brill. Leiden. Boston. 2019. 177 p.

39. Lathrop C. Dispute Regarding Navigational and Related Rights (Costa Rica v. Nicaragua) // American Journal of International Law 2010. Vol. 104. Iss. 3. P. 454–461. DOI:10.5305/amerjintelaw.104.3.0454

40. Lee S., Bernard L. South China Sea Arbitration and Its Application to Dokdo // Asian Journal of International Law. 2018. Vol. 8. Iss. 1. P. 24–35. DOI:10.1017/S2044251317000157

41. Ma X. Merits Award Relating to Historic Rights in the South China Sea Arbitration: An Appraisal // Asian Journal of International Law. 2018. Vol. 8. Iss. 1. P. 12–23. DOI:10.1017/S2044251317000236

42. Nasu H., Rothwell D. Re-Evaluating the Role of International Law in Territorial and Maritime Disputes in East Asia // Asian Journal of International Law. 2014. Vol. 4. Iss. 1. P. 55–79. DOI:10.1017/S2044251313000210

43. Nguyen L. The UNCLOS Dispute Settlement System: What Role Can It Play in Resolving Maritime Disputes in Asia? // Asian Journal of International Law. 2017. Vol. 8. P. 1–25. DOI:10.1017/S204425131600031X.

44. Noyes J. E. International Decision: In re Arbitration between the Philippines and China // American Journal of International Law. 2016. Vol. 110. Iss. 1. P. 102–108. DOI:10.5305/amerjintelaw.110.1.0102

45. Noyes J. E., Juras K., Franckx E. Cases and Materials on The Law of The Sea. 2014. Leiden, Brill. 1008 p.

46. Østhagen A. Maritime Boundary Disputes: What Are they and Why Do they Matter? Marine Policy. 2020. Vol. 120. DOI:10.1016/j.marpol.2020.104118

47. Oude Elferink A. G. Coastal States and MPAs in ABNJ — Ensuring consistency with the LOSC // International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law. 2018. Vol. 33. Iss. 3. P. 437–466. DOI:10.1163/15718085-12333008

48. Peiris N. Ghana v. Ivory Coast // American Journal of International Law. 2018. Vol. 112. Iss. 1. P. 88–93. DOI:10.1017/ajil.2018.10

49. Phan H., Nguyen L. The South China Sea Arbitration: Bindingness, Finality, and Compliance with UNCLOS Dispute Settlement Decisions // Asian Journal of International Law. 2018. Vol. 8. Iss. 1. P. 36–50. DOI:10.1017/S2044251317000121

50. Pietkiewicz M. Legal Status of Caspian Sea — problem solved? Marine Policy. 2020. Vol. 123. DOI:10.1016/j.marpol.2020.104321

51. Qiu J. The CLCS Modalities for Handling Submissions Involving Disputes and Their Possible Application to the South China Sea // Chinese Journal of International Law. 2015. Vol. 14. Iss. 1. P. 135–149. DOI:10.1093/chinesejil/jmv007

52. Rao S. P. The South China Sea Arbitration (The Philippines v. China): Assessment of the Award on Jurisdiction and Admissibility // Chinese Journal of International Law. 2016. Vol. 15. Iss. 2. P. 265–307. DOI:10.1093/chinesejil/jmw019

53. Rothwell D., Hemmings A., eds, International Polar Law. Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd, Cheltenham, UK. 2018. 896 p.

54. Rothwell D., Letts D. Law of the Sea in South East Asia: Environmental, Navigational and Security Challenges, Routledge, London. 2019. 306 p.

55. Rothwell D. Issues and Strategies for Outer Continental Shelf Claims // The International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law. 2008. Vol. 23. Iss. 2. P. 185-211. DOI:10.1163/092735208X295837

56. Rothwell D. Arctic Ocean Shipping: Navigation, Security and Sovereignty in the North American Arctic, Brill, Leiden. 2018. 96 p.

57. Rothwell D, Elferink A, Scott K. et al, eds, The Oxford Handbook of The Law of the Sea, Oxford University Press, Oxford. 2015. 1072 p. DOI:10.1093/law/9780198715481.001.0001

58. Rothwell D. International Straits and Trans-Arctic Navigation. Ocean Development and International Law. 2012. Vol. 43. Iss. 3. P. 267–282. DOI:10.1080/00908320.2012.698924

59. Schoenbaum T. The South China Sea Arbitration Decision: The Need for Clarification // The American Journal of International Law. 2016. Vol. 110. P. 290–295. DOI:10.1017/S2398772300009181

60. Schultheiss C. One of the First Matters to be Addressed but Distinct or Distinct but Inseparable? The Distinction between Maritime Entitlement and Sea Boundary Delimitation in the Philippines v. China Arbitration // Asian Journal of International Law. 2021. Vol. 11. Iss. 1. P. 24–35. DOI:10.1017/S2044251320000235

61. Sheng-ti Gau M. The Agreements and Disputes Crystalized by the 2009–2011 Sino-Philippine Exchange of Notes Verbales and their Relevance to the Jurisdiction and Admissibility Phase of the South China Sea Arbitration // Chinese Journal of International Law. 2016. Vol. 15. Iss. 2. P. 417–430. DOI:10.1093/chinesejil/jmw023

62. Stephens T., Rothwell D. The LOSC Framework for Maritime Jurisdiction and Enforcement 30 Years on // International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law. 2012. Vol. 27. Iss. 4. P. 701–709. DOI:10.1163/15718085-12341250

63. Stephens T. Environmental Litigation by Asia-Pacific States at the International Court of Justice // Melbourne Journal of International Law. 2021. Vol. 21. Iss. 3. https://law.unimelb.edu.au/mjil/issues/forthcoming-issue

64. Talmon S. The South China Sea Arbitration: Observations on the Award on Jurisdiction and Admissibility // Chinese Journal of International Law. 2016. Vol. 15. Iss. 2. P. 309–391. DOI:10.1093/chinesejil/jmw025

65. Tamada D. The Timor Sea Conciliation: The Unique Mechanism of Dispute Settlement // European Journal of International Law. 2020. Vol. 31. Iss. 1. P. 321–344. DOI:10.1093/ejil/chaa025

66. Tanaka Y. The International Law of the Sea. Cambridge University Press. 2019. 584 p. DOI:10.1017/9781108545907

67. Torraco R. J. Writing Integrative Literature Reviews: Guidelines and Examples // Human Resource Development Review. 2005. Vol. 4. P. 356–367. DOI:10.1177/1534484305278283

68. Wood M. C. Choosing between Arbitration and a Permanent Court: Lessons from Inter-State Cases, ICSID Review // Foreign Investment Law Journal. 2017. Vol. 32. Iss. 1. P. 1–16. DOI:10.1093/icsidreview/siw038

69. Wood M. C. The International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea and General International Law // The International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law. 2007. Vol. 22. Iss. 3. P. 351–367. DOI:10.1163/157180807781870345

70. Wu X. Case Note: Maritime Delimitation in the Indian Ocean (Somalia v. Kenya), Judgment on Preliminary Objections // Chinese Journal of International Law. 2018. Vol. 17. Iss. 3. P. 841–860. DOI:10.1093/chinesejil/jmy022

71. Yiallourides C. It Takes Four to Tango: Quadrilateral Boundary Negotiations in the North-East Atlantic Marine Policy. 2018. Vol. 87. Iss. 3. P. 78–83. DOI:10.1016/j.marpol.2017.10.007

72. Zhao B. The Curious Case of Ghana/Côte d’Ivoire: A Consistent Approach to Hydrocarbon Activities in the Disputed Area? // Asian Journal of International Law. 2020. Vol. 10. Iss. 1. P. 94–124. DOI:10.1017/S204425131900016X

73. Zheng Z. Legal Effect of Maps in Maritime Boundary Delimitation: A Response to Erik Franckx and Marco Benatar // Asian Journal of International Law. 2014. Vol. 4. Iss. 2. P. 261–279. DOI:10.1017/S2044251313000295

74. Chinese Society of International Law. The South China Sea Arbitration Awards: A Critical Study // Chinese Journal of International Law. 2018. Vol. 17. Iss. 2. P. 207–748. DOI:10.1093/chinesejil/jmy012