Abstract:Alleged violation of unclos Article 83(3) by unilateral hydrocarbon activities may fall into the scope of Article 298(1)(a)(i), according to which "disputes concerning interpretation or application of Article 83 relating to sea boundary delimitation" shall be excluded from adjudication or arbitration but submitted to a compulsory conciliation. In the Ghana/Cote d'Ivoire case (2017), the Special Chamber of itlos does not regard violations of unclos Article 83(3) as "disputes concerning maritime delimitation"; in the South China Sea Arbitration (2016), the tribunal is of the view if submissions are not "disputes concerning maritime delimitation", Article 298 will not limit the tribunal's jurisdiction. None of these cases involves such an actual jurisdictional objection, but the reasoning of the Chamber and the tribunal does not do favor to the interpretation that Article 298(1)(a)(i) limits their jurisdictions over questions of Article 83(3). Timor-Leste and The Commonwealth of Australia (2018) is the first case of compulsory conciliation, whose proceedings are initiated pursuant to Article 298(1)(a)(i). The Compulsory Conciliation Commission in its Decision on Competence firmly holds that it has jurisdiction on a question of Article 83(3) (the question of transitional arrangements pending a final delimitation). This decision can only be made by interpreting Article 298(1)(a)(i) to the extent that such a question has been excluded from compulsory procedures entailing binding decisions. This interpretation is a direct answer to the jurisdictional question in the application of Article 83(3) as to which compulsory venue it shall be subjected to under Article 298(1)(a)(i). The interpretation is by no means less authoritative, given that the Commission has the power to determine its competence by interpreting Article 298 and its Decision on Competence is binding on the Parties. The substance of violation of unclos Article 83(3) by unilateral hydrocarbon activities is considered in Ghana/Cote d'Ivoire, some ten years after the Guyana/Suriname tribunal decided on the same subject (2007). In Guyana/Suriname, the tribunal takes the nature of the unilateral activities as a factor necessarily linked to the decision on the violation of the obligation "not to jeopardize or hamper the reaching of the final agreement" in the second half of Article 83(3) as far as they occurred in the disputed area that both sides can lay overlapping claims. Guyana's hydrocarbon activities that bring about physical changes, lead to the finding of its violation. In Ghana/Cote d'Ivoire, the nature of Ghana's hydrocarbon activities (resulting in physical change) is no longer decisive and the Special Chamber does not find such a violation merely by the occurrence of such activities. Judge Paik in his Separate opinion considers that, apart from the nature and type, the allegation of Ghana's violation is to be further restricted by considering the time and location of its unilateral hydrocarbon activities, to the extent that such activities are in dispute "were, and should have been" clear to Ghana. This approach can also be found in the Special Chamber's reasoning on the question whether Ghana's unilateral activities pending delimitation violate Cote d'Ivoire's sovereign rights. As a result, the restricted geographic and temporal scope for the violation of pre-delimitation obligations will make some unilateral hydrocarbon activities permissible even though they occur in the disputed area in which both sides can lay overlapping claims. This indicates a need of balance on the consideration of the interest of the States in pursuing economic development in a disputed area pending delimitation. In this regard, Judge Paik's approach is certainly warranted.

The Gulf of Maine Boundary Dispute and Transboundary Management Challenges: Lessons for the Aegean?

The Aegean Sea of Contradictions (Part II)

THE ROLE OF INTERNATIONAL LAW AND UN INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE IN RESOLVING AEGEAN DISPUTE

The Aegean dispute and its implications for the U.S. policy

Canada and the Russian Federation: Maritime Boundaries and Jurisdiction in the Arctic Ocean

Towards Cross-Border Fisheries Management: An Analysis of Fleet Structures and Species-Specific Regulatory Measures in the Aegean Sea

International Practice Regarding Traditional Fishing Privileges of Foreign Fishermen in Zones of Extended Maritime Jurisdiction

Comparison of technical measures in the Aegean Sea to support harmonization of fisheries management policies

The East China Sea: A Case of Ocean Geopolitics and Maritime Conflict

Unlocking Oil and Gas Reserves in the Arctic Ocean: Is there a Conventional Solution to Delimitation of the Maritime Boundaries?

Quantitative Analysis for Maritime Delimitation: Reassessing the Bay of Bengal Delimitation Between Bangladesh and Myanmar

Managing a conflict between allies: United States policy towards Greece and Turkey in relation to the Aegean dispute, 1974–76

Greek-Turkish Relations: Current Status and Opportunities to Reduce Confrontational Potential

A Review over Five Decades

Adding a Gakkel Ridge Regime to the Evolving Arctic Ocean Governance Complex

Analysis of the Jurisprudence of Article 58 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) and the Positions of West African Countries

Jurisdictional and Substantive Aspects in the Application of Unclos Article 83(3) in Recent International Decisions

Ghana v. Ivory Coast

Land-sea interactions and maritime spatial planning guidelines in the context of European Union. The case of Greece

Decadal‐Scale Variability in the Surface Flow of the Gulf of Maine Coastal Current: The Impact of Changing Climate Conditions on Coastal Circulation

Whither the Arctic? Conflict or Cooperation in the Circumpolar North