Philippines v.

Taipei- Closest Factual Antecedents to our present case

Facts: he 2013 Guang Da Xing No. 28 incident was a fatal shooting incident that
occurred on 9 May 2013 involving the Taiwanese fishing boat Guang Da Xing No.
28 and the Philippine Coast Guard patrol boat Maritime Control Surveillance 3001,
which led to the death of Taiwanese fisherman Hung Shih-cheng by gunfire from the
Philippine vessel. The incident occurred in the high seas, within the overlapping exclusive
economic zones of Taiwan and the Philippines.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013_Guang_Da_Xing_No._28_incident
http://globalnation.inquirer.net/74257/philippines-probes-shooting-death-of-
taiwanese

Alleged Violations of Sovereign Rights and Maritime Spaces in the Caribbean

Sea (Nicaraguav. Colombia)

Facts: Nicaragua alleges that Columbia has violated its sovereignty over its
maritime zones and that Columbia has likewise breached its obligation not to use
force. Columbia on the other hand contends that it has denounced the Pact of
Bogota and therefore the ICJ does not have jurisdiction to rule on the matter. This
case also contains certain facts that are closely related to our case such as Colombia
allowing small Nicaraguan boats to fish even closer than their EEZ.

http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/155/18948.pdf
http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/155/18950.pdf

Maritime Delimitation in the Black Sea (Romania v. Ukraine)

Facts: Romania filed an application instituting proceedings against Ukraine

concerning the establishment of a single maritime boundary between the two States
in the Black Sea, thereby delimiting the continental shelf and the exclusive economic
zones appertaining to them.

Pertinent Portions : The Court notes that Articles 74, paragraph 4, and 83,
paragraph 4, of UNCLOS are relevant to Romanias contention that a boundary
delimiting the exclusive economic zones and continental shelf beyond Point 1, and
extending around Serpents Island, was established by the 1949 instruments.
Paragraph 4 of Articles 74 and 83 provides that where there is an agreement in
force between the States concerned, questions relating to the delimitation of the
exclusive economic zone and the continental shelf shall be determined in
accordance with the provisions of that agreement. The word agreement in
paragraph 4 (as elsewhere in the Article) refers to an agreement delimiting the
exclusive economic zone (Article 74) or the continental shelf (Article 83) referred to
in paragraph 1. State practice indicates that the use of a boundary agreed for the
delimitation of one maritime zone to delimit another zone is effected by a new
agreement. This typically occurs when States agree to apply their continental shelf
boundary to the exclusive economic zone. The agreement between Turkey and the
USSR applying the continental shelf boundary to the exclusive economic zone is one
such example. By the same token, if States intend that their territorial sea boundary
limit agreed earlier should later serve also as the delimitation of the continental
shelf and/or the exclusive economic zones, they would be expected to conclude a
new agreement for this purpose.

http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/132/14989.pdf

Maritime Dispute (Peru v. Chile)

Facts: The Republic of Peru (hereinafter Peru) filed in the Registry of the Court an
Application instituting proceedings against the Republic of Chile (hereinafter
Chile) in respect of a dispute concerning, on the one hand, the delimitation of the
boundary between the maritime zones of the two States in the Pacific Ocean,
beginning at a point on the coast called Concordia.

Relevant Parts: The Court recalls that the purpose of the 1954 Special Maritime
Frontier Zone Agreement was to establish a zone of tolerance along the parallel for
small fishing boats, which were not sufficiently equipped. Boats departing from
Arica (a Chilean port situated just 15 km to the south of the seaward terminus of the
land boundary) to catch the above-mentioned species, in a west-north-west
direction, in the range of 60 nautical miles from the coast, which runs essentially
from north to south at this point, would not cross the parallel beyond a point
approximately 57 nautical miles from the starting-point of the maritime boundary.
The orientation of the coast turns sharply to the north-west in this region (see
sketch-maps Nos. 1 and 2), such that, on the Peruvian side, fishing boats departing
seaward from Ilo (a port situated about 120 km north-west of the seaward terminus
of the land boundary), in a south-west direction, to the range of those same species
would cross the parallel of latitude at a point up to approximately 100 nautical miles
from the starting-point of the maritime boundary.

The Court proceeds on the basis of the provisions of Articles 74, paragraph 1, and
83,paragraph 1, of UNCLOS which, as it has recognized, reflect customary
international law (Maritime Delimitation and Territorial Questions between Qatar
and Bahrain (Qatar v. Bahrain), Merits, Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 2001, p. 91, para.
167; Territorial and Maritime Dispute (Nicaragua v. Colombia), Judgment, I.C.J.
Reports 2012 (II), p. 674, para. 139). The texts of these provisions are identical, the
only difference being that Article 74 refers to the exclusive economic zone and
Article 83 to the continental shelf. They read as follows: The delimitation of the
exclusive economic zone [continental shelf] between States with opposite or
adjacent coasts shall be effected by agreement on the basis of international law, as
referred to in Article 38 of the Statute of the International Court of Justice, in order
to achieve an equitable solution.
http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/137/17958.pdf