INTERNATIONALDECISIONS
Edited byDavid J.Bederman
- testofdisproportion- relevant
- maritime
coasts
delimitation
CourtofJustice
International
methodology
- selection basepoints- relevantcircumstances
ality
of
Athttp://www.icj-cij.org.
v.Ukraine).
MaritimeDelimitationinthe Black Sea (Romania
International
CourtofJustice,
3,2009.
February
decisionin
a unanimous
delivered
CourtofJustice
On February
3,2009,theInternational
boundmaritime
of
their
the
delimitation
RomaniaandUkraine
thecasebetween
concerning
outinthenorthwestern
wascarried
partoftheBlack
aryintheBlackSea.1The delimitation
to thewest,
coast
and
Ukraine's
west
to
the
coast
Romania's
formed
Sea intheconcavity
by
landboundary
shared
meetattheir
coastsoftheparties
andeast(seemap).Theadjacent
north,
naulies
Island
ontheRiverDanubedelta.Ukraine's
terminus
twenty
approximately
Serpents'
a
todelimitfivemethod
ticalmileseastoftheDanubedelta.TheCourtusedtheequidistance
oftheouterlimitsoftheRomanianand
atPoint1: theintersection
starting
pointboundary
in their2003 StateBorder
seasagreedbytheparties
Ukrainian
Island)territorial
(Serpents'
Point1
intoforceon May27, 2004.2Between
whichentered
RegimeTreaty(2003Treaty),
ofSerlimit
outer
sea
territorial
twelve-nautical-mile
the
follows
andPoint2, theboundary
from
linemeasured
is an equidistance
boundary
pents'Island.BeyondPoint2 themaritime
coastsofRomaniaandUkraine(Point2-Point3-Point4) andthen
theadjacentmainland
CrimeanPeninsula(Point
coastsofRomaniaandUkraine's
theoppositemainland
between
"untilitreaches
direction
ina specified
continues
4 -Point5). SouthofPoint5 theboundary
ofthirdStatesmaybe affected"
theareawheretherights
(para.219).3
theCourtwithitsSeptember
before
16,2004,submistheproceedings
Romaniainitiated
the
between
maritime
"a
to
draw
the
Court
sionofanapplication
boundary
single
requesting
1Maritime
Feb.3, 2009).The basicdocuments,
intheBlackSea (Rom.v. Ukr.)(Int'lCt.Justice
Delimitation
this
caseand othersareavailableon the
for
materials
and
other
releases,
decisions,
press
transcripts,
pleadings,
Court'sWebsite,<http://www.icj-cij.org>.
2 TheCourtused"2003StateBorder
Romaniaand
Between
thenameoftheTreaty
tosimplify
RegimeTreaty"
on BorderMatandMutualAssistance
Collaboration
StateBorderRegime,
ontheRomanian-Ukrainian
Ukraine
ters,
June17,2003,2277 UNTS 3 (para.21).
3 The thirdstates
most
Thesetwostateshavedelimited
andTurkey.
areBulgaria
whoserights
maybe affected
at
sublater
"finalized
be
to
northeasternmost
the
the
oftheir
maritime
segment
along
boundary,
leaving endpoint
on theDelimitheRepublicofTurkeyandtheRepublicofBulgaria
Between
Agreement
sequentnegotiations."
Areas
oftheMaritime
RiverandDelimitation
in theMouthoftheRezovska/Mutludere
tationoftheBoundary
isusedtodescribe
Between
theTwoStatesintheBlackSea,Art.4( 1) ,Dec. 4,1997,2087UNTS 5. Similar
language
SeeAgreement
andTurkey.
Ukraine
between
ofthemaritime
inthewesternmost
theendpoint
boundary
segment
1978,1247
1
Art.
Black
23,
in
the
,
Shelf
Turk.-U.S.S.R.,
the
Continental
of
Sea,
the
Delimitation
June
Concerning
theirmaritime
havenotdelimited
UNTS 137.RomaniaandBulgaria
boundary.
543
544
THE AMERICANJOURNALOF INTERNATIONAL LAW
[Vol. 103
FIGURE 1. MARITIME DELIMITATION AREA.
shelfand theexclusiveeconomiczonesofthetwoStates"(para. 11, quotingRomacontinental
nia's application).Romaniasoughtto foundjurisdictionon Article36(1) of theICJ Statute
and paragraph4(h) of the AdditionalAgreementto the Treatyon the Relationsof Good
and Co-operationBetweenRomaniaand Ukraine(1997 Treaty).Both the
Neighbourliness
AdditionalAgreement
and the 1997 TreatyweresignedJune2, 1997, and enteredintoforce
on October22, 1997. As quoted bytheCourt (para.20), thecompromissory
simultaneously
clauseof paragraph4(h) ofthe AdditionalAgreementreads,in relevantpart:
If thesenegotiations
shallnotdeterminetheconclusionoftheabove-mentioned
[delimin a reasonabletime,butnotlaterthan2 yearssincetheirinitiation,
the
itation]agreement
Governmentof Romaniaand theGovernmentof Ukrainehaveagreedthattheproblem
ofdelimitationof thecontinentalshelfand theexclusiveeconomiczones shallbe solved
attherequestofanyoftheParties,providedthat
CourtofJustice,
bytheUN International
theTreatyon theregimeof theStateborderbetweenRomaniaand Ukrainehas entered
intoforce.
clausehad beenfulfilled:
the
The Courtconcludedthatbothconditionsofthecompromissory
from
to
the
had
entered
without
success
and
had
1998
2003
2004,
Treaty
parties
negotiated
intoforceseveralmonthsbeforeRomania fileditsapplication(para. 21).
butitdid questionthescopeofthatjurisUkrainedid notcontesttheCourt'sjurisdiction,
diction in relationto the firstsegmentof Romania's boundaryclaim- betweenPoint F
(Romania'snamefortheendpointofthe2003 Treaty)and PointX. Betweenthesetwopoints
2009]
INTERNATIONAL DECISIONS
545
Island'sterritorial
outerlimitofSerpents'
Romania's
claimfollowed
thetwelve-nautical-mile
economiczone
sea fromRomania'sexclusive
Ukraine'sterritorial
sea and wouldseparate
F-Xhadbeenestablished
Romaniaarguedthatsegment
shelf.
(EEZ) andcontinental
byagreebefore
oftheboundary
thissegment
theparties
andaskedtheCourttoconfirm
mentbetween
todelimit
theremaining
beyondPointX. Ukraine
arguedonthemerits
boundary
proceeding
thatitwasbeyond
andmadethejurisdictional
hadnotbeenagreed,
thatthissegment
argument
thosespecifically
other
than
zones
maritime
delimit
to
thescopeoftheCourt'sjurisdiction
theEEZ andcontinental
toinparagraph
referred
4(h) oftheAdditional
Agreementnamely,
seasof
theterritorial
todelimit
shelf(para.24). The Courtagreedthatithad"nojurisdiction
"on
the
one
between
from
thatitwastherefore
butdisagreed
theParties"
prevented delimiting
shelfofoneState,and,on theother
economiczoneandthecontinental
hand,theexclusive
limit"(para.30).
its
seaward
at
State
other
of
the
sea
territorial
the
hand,
theparties'
themedianlinebetween
claimfollowed
FromPointX toPointT, theRomanian
themedian
southatPointT following
claimturned
coasts.TheRomanian
mainland
adjacent
Z.
Ukraine's
Point
at
and
coasts
mainland
the
linebetween parties'
boundary
stopped
opposite
ofthe2003 Treaty)andfollowed
namefortheendpoint
at Point1 (Ukraine's
claimstarted
Islandthrough
coastandthecoastofSerpents'
Romania'smainland
a medianlinebetween
azimuth
a
followed
claim
the
Ukraine
Point2 to Point3. FromPoint3
specified
boundary
into
come
of thirdStatespotentially
"untilit reache[d]a pointwheretheinterests
play"
between
differences
The
claims.
both
method
The
major
underlay
equidistance
(para.13).
Point1 versus
delimitation
thestarting
(Ukraine's
themconcerned
pointoftheequidistance
togiveSerpents'
Island thatis,whether
ofSerpents'
Romania'sPointX) andthetreatment
territotwelve-nautical-mile
own
its
no
effect
or
delimitation
in
the
effect
full
Island
beyond
rialsea.
It
betweentheparties'starting-point
thedifference
resolved
The Courtfirst
positions.
ofan agreedmaritime
theendpoint
thatPointX represented
Romania'sargument
rejected
Ukraine's
seasoftheparties
theterritorial
between
either
(paras.55-66) orbetween
boundary
shelfand EEZ (paras.67-76). Instead,theCourt
sea andRomania'scontinental
territorial
delimithestarting
established
1
of
the
2003 Treaty
foundthatArticle
pointofthepresent
1
Point
at
seaboundary
territorial
oftheparties'
theendpoint
(para.66).
tationbyfixing
maritime
area,decoastsandrelevant
oftherelevant
toitsanalysis
The Courtthenturned
mostof
that
and
delimitation
the
to
relevant
was
coast
thattheentireRomanian
termining
to
Romania
with
terminus
fromthelandboundary
coastwasrelevant,
mainland
Ukraine's
the
Peninsula
onthesouthern
(paras.88,98-103). However,
tipoftheCrimean
CapeSarych
"face
since
relevant
not
were
Gulf
Karkinits'ka
they
CourtfoundthatthecoastsofUkraine's
eachother"and"do notprojectintheareatobe delimited"
(para.100),5andthatthe"coast
oftherelevant
totheoverall
thatitmakesnorealdifference
Islandissoshort
ofSerpents'
length
Romaniaand
between
ratio
a
coastal
found
coastsoftheParties"
length
(para.102). TheCourt
Gulffrom
Ukraineof 1:2.8 (para.104). The CourtexcludedthewatersoftheKarkinits'ka
BlackSea
includedall theareain thenorthwest
maritime
itsrelevant
area,whichotherwise
4 Artide 1 of the2003
Point 1. The textof
TreatyprovidesthecoordinatesofwhattheCourt and Ukrainecall
Article1 is quoted at paragraph63.
5 The Court's
fromthattakenwithrespectto theBay of Fundyin Delimitationofthe
approachhereis different
MaritimeBoundaryin theGulfofMaine Area, 1984 ICJ REP. 246, para. 221 (Oct. 12).
546
LAW
THE AMERICAN
OF INTERNATIONAL
JOURNAL
[Vol. 103
tothe
toactualornotional
delimitations
withneighboring
states
thecoastsoftheparties
from
south(paras.110-14).
first
a
delimitation
The Courtfollowed
a standard,
methodology,
establishing
three-stage
line
based
on
"methods
that
are
objective"
(para.116),
geometrically
provisional
equidistance
or
oftheproarefactors
for
the
"whether
there
secondconsidering
adjustment
shifting
calling
and
thirdverlinein orderto achievean equitableresult"
visionalequidistance
(para.120),
thattheprovisional
line,adjustedornot,doesnot"leadtoan inequitable
equidistance
ifying
coastallengths
between
theratiooftherespective
result
reason
of
marked
any
by
disproportion
therelevant
maritime
areaofeachState"(para.122).
andtheratiobetween
theactualorobjective
Beforeundertaking
to construct
line,the
provisional
equidistance
of
base
to
andarguably
Courttookthepreliminary,
step selecting points be used
subjective,
in
of
the
delimitation
exercise
wasto"identify
intheconstruction.
The Court'sgoal thispart
relevant
coastorcoastswhichmarka significant
theappropriate
change
pointson theParties'
formed
inthedirection
ofthecoast,insucha waythatthegeometrical
bythelineconfigure
thegeneral
ofthecoastlines"
direction
all thesepointsreflects
(para.127).Notably,
necting
as
a
of
base
on
Ukraine's
that
Island
source
theCourteliminated
coast,stating
Serpents'
points
an
extraneous
a
of
the
coast
would
amount
to
as
relevant
to"countSerpents'
Island
part
grafting
ofgeogtheconsequence
wouldbe a judicialrefashioning
element
ontoUkraine's
coastline;
1
the
the
.6
The
Court
also
eliminated
base
on
seaward
end
of
Romania's
point
raphy"
(para. 49)
a basepointon thelandward
Sulinadykeandsubstituted
endofthedyke
7.5-kilometer-long
The
Court
selected
two
base
on
Romania's
coast
theSacalin
138-41).
(on
(paras.
points
Peninsula
andthelandward
endofSulinadyke)andthreebasepointson Ukraine's
coast(on
IslandonUkraine's
sideoftheentrance
totheDanubeandonCapeTarkhankut
and
Tsyganka
to
construct
its
line
A-B-C
Cape Khersones)
provisional
equidistance
(para.154).
The Courtthenconsidered
several
factors
orrelevant
circumstances
thatmight
callforthe
of
the
line.
The
relevant
circumstances
included
adjustment
provisional
equidistance
disprocoastallengths
oftheBlackSea andexisting
portionate
(paras.158-68), theenclosednature
maritime
intheregion(paras.169-78), thepresence
delimitations
ofSerpents'
Islandinthe
delimitation
area(paras.179-88), theconductoftheparties
cutoff
(paras.189-98),possible
effects
and
considerations
(paras.199-201),
security
(paras.202-04). The Courtfoundno
reasontoadjustitslineon thebasisofthesefactors,
itdidmakeminoradjustments
in
though
ordertostarttheboundary
atthepointfixedinthe2003 Treaty(Point1) andtoallowa full
twelve-nautical-mile
territorial
seaforSerpents'
Island(Point2). TheCourtturned
tothethird
of
its
delimitation
the
test
and
found
no
stage
disproportionality
significant
disproporbetween
thecoastallength
ratio(1:2.8) andtheratioofmaritime
areafalling
tothe
tionality
parties(1:2.1) (paras.210-16).
****
6 The
ofgeography"
hasmoreoftenbeenusedinarguments
theeffect
of
phrase"refashioning
against
reducing
a naturally
or coastalconfiguration.
feature
See,e.g.,NorthSea Continental
Shelf(FRG/Den.;FRG/
occurring
Neth.),1969ICJREP.3, paras.89-91 (Feb.20) (recognizing
theconcaveconfiguration
ofGermany's
coastas "a
naturalgeographical
feature"
and notingthattheapplication
ofequitableprinciples
underthesecircumstances
wouldnotequateto a complete
ofgeography);
Continental
Shelf(UK/Fr.),18 R.I.A.A.3, 113-14
refashioning
oftheCornishpeninsula
andScillyIsles"isa geographical
(June30, 1977) (notingthattheprojection
fact,a fact
ofnature").
HeretheCourtusesthephraseas a justification
ofa naturally
feature.
fortheelimination
occurring
INTERNATIONAL DECISIONS
2009]
547
theequidistance
TheCourtdelivered
a straightforward,
boundary
applying
singlemaritime
The unaniof
the
coastalgeography
methodto theadjacentandoppositemainland
parties.
withinthedeorcontroversy
is notlikely
tostirmuchexcitement
mous,reasoned
judgment
- thecentral
Island
of
treatment
the
Court's
limitation
Nonetheless,
Serpents'
community.
- merits
inthisdelimitation
briefcomment.
feature
thecoastofSerrolestoplayinthisdelimitation.
Islandhadfourpotential
First,
Serpents'
coastal
ofdetermining
relevant
coastforthepurpose
partofUkraine's
pents'Islandcouldform
when
Island
of
the
coast
eliminated
nor
included
neither
The
Court
Serpents'
explicitly
length.
would
be
it
or
not
it
was
so
because
coastal
short,
including
notingthat,
length,
calculating
the
of
coastal
theoverall
exercise
ofdetermining
to thegeneralized
lengths
inconsequential
102).7
(para.
parties
whichtomeasourceofbasepointsfrom
Islandisa legitimate
Second,thecoastofSerpents'
zones
maritime
Which
it
zones
maritime
of
breadth
surethe
Serpents'
mightgenerate.
any
121oftheUN Convention
underArticle
ofitsstatus
isa question
togenerate
Islandisentitled
ofsustaining
Islandwas"incapable
on theLaw oftheSea.8RomaniaarguedthatSerpents'
toan
a "rock"notentitled
oreconomiclifeofitsown"andwastherefore
humanhabitation
that
Ukraine
Article
under
shelf
EEZ or continental
121(3) (para.124).
Serpents'
argued
zonesas anyother
thesamemaritime
togenerate
Islandwasnota rock,butan islandentitled
withArticle121(2) (para.184). Havingremoved
in accordance
coastalterritory
Serpents'
need
"not
it
did
that
noted
the
Court
earlier
at
an
thedelimitation
Islandfrom
stage,
process
their
nor
121
...
Article
2
of
or
3
falls
under
Island
whether
toconsider
paragraphs
Serpents'
to thiscase"(para.187).
relevance
Islandas a sourceofbasepoints
theaboveroleofSerpents'
Third,theCourtdistinguished
itspossibleroleasa sourceofbasepoints
zonesfrom
ofitsmaritime
thebreadth
formeasuring
ofbasepointsfor
theselection
anequidistant
forconstructing
boundary
(para.137).9Whereas
coastalstate,the
the
for particular
a matter
zonesislargely
ofmaritime
thebreadth
measuring
statesisforthecourttodecide{id).
between
ofbasepointsina judicialdelimitation
selection
of,calculating
thispowerpriorto,andforthepurpose
In thecaseathand,theCourtexercised
Sulinadyke
of
end
seaward
the
motu10
it
eliminated
line:
itsprovisional
expropio
equidistance
Island
on
(para.149).
anypoints Serpents'
(paras.138 40) andalso,as Romaniahadargued,
7 The total
whereastheCourtassessedUkraine's
2 kilometers,
lengthofSerpents'Island'scoastis approximately
705 kilometers(paras. 16, 103).
relevantcoast to be approximately
8 Artidel21
("Regimeof islands")provides:
1. An islandis a naturallyformedarea of land, surroundedbywater,whichis above waterat hightide.
sea, the contiguouszone, theexclusiveeconomic
2. Exceptas providedforin paragraph3, theterritorial
zone and the continentalshelfof an island are determinedin accordancewith the provisionsof this
Conventionapplicableto otherland territory.
3. Rockswhichcannotsustainhumanhabitationor economiclifeoftheirown shallhaveno exclusiveeconomiczone or continentalshelf.
9 The Court noted that
thebreadthofthecontinentalshelfand the
thebaselineforthepurposeof measuring
theissueofdetermining
line for
base pointsfordrawingan equidistance/median
exclusiveeconomiczone and theissueofidentifying
the continentalshelfand the exclusiveeconomic zone betweenadjacent/opposite
the purposeof delimiting
issues.(Para. 137, emphasisadded)
Statesare two different
10Both
end of Sulina dykein the constructionof theirequidistance-basedboundary
the
seaward
used
parties
claims(paras. 151-52). In thecourseof oral argument,however,Ukrainequestionedwhyitwould be "equitable
548
LAW
THE AMERICAN
OF INTERNATIONAL
JOURNAL
[Vol. 103
inthefirst
as basepointsoccurred
Theelimination
ofthesefeatures
stepofthefirst
stageof
inthe
Whiletheresult givingno effect
delimitation
theCourt'sthree-stage
methodology.
theorder
Island- isnotsurprising,
tobasepointsonSulinadykeorSerpents'
final
delimitation
withtherecent
wasnotinkeeping
thesefeatures
inwhichtheCourtaddressed
procedural
pracwillconstruct
a courtortribunal
Morecommonly,
courtsandtribunals.
ticeofinternational
xl This"strict"
line
lineusingallfeatures.
theprovisional
provisional
equidistance
equidistance
the
in lightofrelevant
is thenscrutinized
circumstances,
large
including disproportionately
haveonthedirection
thatsmallfeatures,
suchasislandsorextensive
effect
banks,
drying
might
effect
is created,
theproviline.12Ifsucha disproportionate
oftheprovisional
equidistance
- by
linemaythenbe adjusted in thesecondstageofthedelimitation
sionalequidistance
itfrom
theequidistance
orbyeliminating
tothedistorting
lessthanfulleffect
feature,
giving
in
to
achieve
an
result.13
order
calculation
entirely,
equitable
atan earlier
calculation
Islandfromthedelimitation
Fourth,
stage,
byremoving
Serpents'
roleasa relevant
circumstance
ofSerpents'
Island'spotential
theimportance
theCourtreduced
line.Evenso,theCourtdid
totheprovisional
orfactor
equidistance
callingforanadjustment
itfromthe
eliminated
ofSerpents'
Islandand,havingalready
takeintoaccountthepresence
oftheprovisional
foundthatit"doesnotcallforanadjustment
calculation,
equiequidistance
line"(para.187).14
distance
lineis unusual,15
theprovisional
but
a feature
before
equidistance
calculating
Eliminating
modelinthefuture.
itcouldprovea useful
Here,itallowedtheCourttoavoidthe
procedural
121
status
a
tothecase.
of
Island's
Article
questionthatwasnotcentral
question Serpents'
to
This procedural
modelwill,moreover,
future
delimitation
cases
additional
giveparties
in
the
role
of
small
features
well
as
as
rationales
fortheir
delimitations,
arguments
regarding
toaccorda man-made
structure
oftwolow,thinstoneembankments,
about150 mapart,
7.5 km
consisting
jutting
forthedelimitation
ofthecontinental
shelfandexclusive
economiczone,whilea muchlarger
long,a fulleffect
natural
islandshouldreceive
noequivalent
treatment."
Verbatim
Record,
ICJDoc. CR 2008/32,para.90 (Sept.18,
2008).
11SeeContinental
Shelf(UK/Fr.),
18 R.I.A.A.3 (June30, 1977);Maritime
Delimitation
intheAreaBetween
Greenland
andJanMayen(Den. v.Nor.),1993ICJREP.38 (June14);Eritrea
v.Yemen,SecondStage,Maritime
Delimitation
(Perm.Ct. Arb.Dec. 17, 1999),at http:www.pca-cpa.org
(reported
byW. MichaelReismanat
94 AJIL721 (2000)); Maritime
Delimitation
and Territorial
QuestionsBetweenQatarand Bahrain(Qatarv.
Bahr.),2001ICJREP.40 (Mar.16) (reported
byGlenPlantat96 AJIL198(2002)) ; NovaScotiaV.Newfoundland
and Labrador,
SecondPhase,MaritimeBoundary(Mar. 26, 2002), at http://www.nr.gov.nl.ca/mines%26en/
Land and MaritimeBoundaryBetweenCameroonand Nigeria
publications/offshore/dispute/phasell.pdf;
2002 ICJREP.303 (Oct. 10) (reported
at97 AJIL
(Cameroonv. Nig.;Eq. Guineaintervening),
byPeterBekker
v. TrinidadandTobago,27 R.I.A.A.147 (Apr.11, 2006); Guyanav. Suriname
387 (2003)); Barbados
(UN Law
of theSea AnnexVII Arb.Trib. Sept. 17, 2007), at http://www.pca-cpa.org/upload/files/Guyana-Suriname
%20Award.pdf
(reported
byStephenFiettaat 102AJIL119 (2008)).
12SeeContinental
whether
theScillyIslesmight"distort
theboundary
Shelf,para.244 (questioning
andhave
effects
as between
thetwostates").
disproportionate
13See, Continental
Shelf(adjusting
strict
linebygiving
theScillyIslesonlyhalfeffect);
Eritrea
e.g.,
equidistance
v.Yemen(adjusting
strict
linebygiving
noeffect
toislandofal-Tayr
andislandgroupofal-Zubayr);
equidistance
Maritime
Delimitation
andTerritorial
Between
strict
lineby
Questions
QatarandBahrain
(adjusting
equidistance
noeffect
toextensive
banksofFashtalJarim);
v.Labrador
Newfoundland
andNovaScotia(adjusting
giving
drying
strict
linebygivingno effect
to SableIsland).
equidistance
14However,
Island
was
a
territorial
ofadjustsea,whichhadtheeffect
Serpents'
given full,twelve-nautical-mile
line.
ingtheCourt'sprovisional
equidistance
15The Courtcitesat
149ofthejudgment
toitstreatment
oftheisletofFilfainthedelimitation
case
paragraph
between
of
LibyaandMalta.TheretheCourt"[found]itequitablenottotakeaccountofFilfainthecalculation
theprovisional
medianlinebetweenMaltaand Libya."Continental
Shelf(Libya/Malta),
1985 ICJREP. 13,
para.64 (June3).
2009]
INTERNATIONAL DECISIONS
549
elimination.Many maritimedelimitationcases have containedsmall,potentiallydistorting
features,
includingone delimitationcase on theCourt'sdocketat thetimeof thiswriting.16
The Court'sboundarycompletesmostof the maritimeboundarybetweenRomania and
Ukrainefromtheirsharedland boundaryterminuson theDanube deltato a tripointamong
thepartiesand,mostlikely,Turkeyas theirsouthernmaritimeneighbor.However,thesouthwith
ernendoftheCourt'sboundaryisopen-endedandwillbe closedonlythroughagreement
boundariesinthispartoftheBlackSea- betweenUkraine
a thirdstate.The twootherexisting
and Turkeyand betweenBulgariaand Turkey- are also "unfinished"in thearea of thetripoint.17The fourthboundaryin thearea betweenRomaniaand Bulgaria hasnotyetbeen
delimitedbut will likelyextendinto thissame area,creatinga second tripointor possiblya
quadpointin thewesternBlack Sea.
COALTERG. LATHROP
Inc.
Sovereign
Geographic,
- dona- enforcement
on censoredworks
WTO - TRIPSAgreement
property copyright
ofintellectual
thresholds
tionsand auctionsofseizedgoods criminalprosecution
China- Measures Affectingthe Protection and Enforcementof Intellectual PropertyRIGHTS.
WT/DS362/R.
^http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/cüspu_e/cases_e/ds362_e
WorldTradeOrganization
26, 2009 (adoptedMarch20, 2009).
Panel,January
The UnitedStatesfileda complaintundertheWorldTrade Organization(WTO) Agreementon Trade-RelatedAspectsof IntellectualPropertyRights1(TRIPS Agreement)against
China concerningthreeintellectual
aspectsofChineselaw and practice,namely,the
property
the disposalby donationand auctionsof
censored
of
of
works;
denial copyright
protection
of criminalsanctionsforpiracyand counterseizedcounterfeit
goods; and theunavailability
The panel report,subseand trademark
rightsbelow certainthresholds.
feitingof copyright
Settlement
TO
W
the
,
Body(DSB) acceptedthecomplainton the
Dispute
quentlyadoptedby
first
pointbutmostlyrejectedtheothertwo.2Beyonditsanalysisofthethreeclaims,thereport
in WTO members'combecauseitsuggestsan unexpecteddegreeofflexibility
is interesting
boththetraditional
blurred
have
also
it
because
and
TRIPS
the
with
may
Agreement
pliance
TRIPS violations
line
the
between"as such"and "as applied"claimsand
distinction
separating
fromnon-violations.
In itsfirst
claim,theUnitedStatesarguedthatArticle4 ofChina's CopyrightLaw is inconand
sistentwithArticles5(1) and 5(2) oftheBerneConventionfortheProtectionofLiterary
16The effectof islands,islets,and
cayswill be centralto the delimitationbetweenNicaragua and Colombia
and MaritimeDispute (Nicar. v. Colom.), PreliminaryObjections
Territorial
See
the
Court.
before
currently
(Int'l Ct. JusticeDec. 13, 2007).
17See
supranote 3 and accompanyingtext.
1
MarrakeshAgreement
Agreementon Trade-RelatedAspectsof IntellectualPropertyRights,Apr. 15, 1994,
TRIPS Agreement],Art.27, in THE LEGAL
EstablishingtheWorld Trade Organization,Annex 1C [hereinafter
Texts: The Results of the Uruguay Round of multilateral Trade Negotiations 365, reprinted
in33 ILM 1197 (1994).
2 Panel
the Protectionand Enforcementof IntellectualPropertyRights,
Report,China MeasuresAffecting
Panel Report].Materialson specificWTO
WT/DS362/R (Jan. 26, 2009) (adopted Mar. 20, 2009) [hereinafter
at
online
available
are
http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/find_dispu_cases_e.htm.
disputes