The genesis of the dispute between Ghana and Cote d\u2019Ivoire over the delimitation of its maritime boundaries stems from the decision of Ghana to apply for extension of its continental shelf following the discovery of oil in commercial quantities in its maritime zone.<\/p>\n
The continental shelf is made up of the seabed and subsoil of the submarine areas that extend beyond a coastal state\u2019s territorial sea up to the continental margin or where the continental margin does not extend to 200 nautical miles from the baseline of the country\u2019s territorial sea, then from the continental margin to cover the allowed 200 nautical miles.<\/p>\n
Also, where a country\u2019s continental margin extends beyond the 200 mile limit, it shall take measures to confirm this extension, according to article 76 (4)-(6).<\/p>\n
Ghana\u2019s submission before the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf (CLCS) was to rely on the article 76(4)-(6) principle to extend and affirm its continental margin which goes beyond the 200 mile limit.<\/p>\n
However, this decision prompted Cote d\u2019Ivoire to make similar claims on the basis that doing that extension will extend into its continental shelf or continental margin.<\/p>\n
Following these submissions, the two parties entered into some negotiations through ECOWAS to help resolve the matter.<\/p>\n
However, Ghana, probably feeling frustrated by feet-dragging on the part of its Ivoirian counterparts and believing it has an unshakeable claim to the dispute territory, decided to transfer the dispute to a special Chamber of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS).<\/p>\n
The Ghana-Cote d\u2019Ivoire case represents only the second maritime delimitation case for ITLOS, the few others having been brought before the International Court of Justice (ICJ).<\/p>\n
At this point, Cote d\u2019Ivoire, relying on article 290 of the UNCLOS, applied for prescription of provisional measures against Ghana on 27 February 2015, requiring it to:<\/p>\n
– to take all steps to suspend all ongoing oil exploration and exploitation operations in the disputed area;<\/p>\n
– refrain from granting any new permit for oil exploration and exploitation in the disputed area;<\/p>\n
– take all steps necessary to prevent information resulting from past, ongoing or future exploration activities conducted by Ghana, or with its authorization, in the disputed area from being used in any way whatsoever to the detriment of C\u00f4te d\u2019Ivoire;<\/p>\n
– and, generally, take all necessary steps to preserve the continental shelf, its superjacent waters and its subsoil; and<\/p>\n
– desist and refrain from any unilateral action entailing a risk of prejudice to the rights of C\u00f4te d\u2019Ivoire and any unilateral action that might lead to aggravating the dispute.<\/p>\n
Ultimately, the Tribunal gave its ruling on the provisional measures application on April 25, 2015. The ruling has received mixed reactions from Ghanaians, including the media. The Graphic Communication Group, for instance, in a rather bizarre twist of journalistic \u201cpull-him-down\u201d tactic, accused JoyFM of initially inaccurately reporting that Ghana lost the case and then coming back to retract that reportage. In the end, some have claimed \u201cvictory\u201d for Ghana and others \u201closs.\u201d<\/p>\n
I recall in an interview I gave Citi FM on the possible outcome of the case that the ruling is likely to go the way of Cote d\u2019Ivoire, citing one reason among others, the fact that oil is a finite resource. But what is interesting is the comments of Mr. Tsatsu Tsikata, the former head of the Ghana National Petroleum Corporation (GNPC) and a member of Ghana\u2019s legal team over this case.<\/p>\n
In an interview granted JoyFM, he noted that out of the five provisional measures requested by Ivory Coast from the Tribunal, only one was granted and even that was a partial grant. I don\u2019t know if he was properly reported but I think that the opposite was rather true. The court declined to prescribe the first request against Ghana but granted the rest requests in favour of Cote d\u2019Ivoire.<\/p>\n
Even with respect to the refused request for Ghana, which is considered as Ghana\u2019s victory, the Tribunal noted that the basis for refusing the Ivoirien request was, among others, because \u201c[a]n Order to stop all activity in the TEN field\u201d would be \u201cfinancially ruinous\u201d and \u201cthe enormous investment in the Deepwater Tano Concession Block, including the TEN … fields, which has taken place over the last nine years (since 2006), would be threatened with irreparable harm\u201d to the environment (para 84 of the ruling). It is therefore possible that that request may have been granted against Ghana had it not started its drilling activities in the TEN region.<\/p>\n
Again, Mr. Tsikata is reported for having said that the ruing has strengthened Ghana’s position and weakened Cote d\u2019Ivoire\u2019s. It is important to sound positive that the substantive will go in favour of Ghana.<\/p>\n
However, that remarks seems to be overly optimistic considering, among others, that the Tribunal ruled that C\u00f4te d\u2019Ivoire \u201chas presented enough material to show that the rights it seeks to protect in the disputed area are plausible\u201d (para 62 of the ruling). The \u201cplausibility clause\u201d shows that the Ivoirian case has been shown not be vexatious and frivolous, as my colleague,<\/p>\n
Mr. Kojo Anna Ankomah, put it. As things stand now, Ghana stands as the losers at this stage of the battle. The decision has swung momentum on the side of the Ivoirians.<\/p>\n
Cote d\u2019Ivoire had nothing to lose in the first place when the case went before the Tribunal but it has gained some victory which gives it a flicker of hope in contesting Ghana\u2019s claim.<\/p>\n
In maritime disputes, there is no one agreed formula to settle the dispute. The equidistance and historical facts principles which is the anchor holding Ghana\u2019s case together is not found on solid ground.<\/p>\n
The court has relied on other principles such as the equity\/equitable principle, single maritime boundary and proportionality principles. Even with the equidistance principle, it adds the principle of \u201crelevant circumstances.\u201d<\/p>\n
Factors that the Tribunal would take into account include geographical factors, such as the length and configuration of the coastline and non-geographical factors as well, which includes socio-economic circumstances and historical rights. In fact, each case is unique on its circumstance.<\/p>\n
However, at the end of the day, most maritime disputes have been resolved through mutual agreements resulting from delicate and tactful diplomatic processes, the most important of it being through negotiation.<\/p>\n
Bright Simon, rightly notes that 90% of such cases are settled through bilateral negotiations because the rules for maritime boundary delimitation are indeed \u201ccompendious and quite arbitrary.\u201d<\/p>\n
I therefore think that Ghana\u2019s decision to go to the ITLOS was premature so long as negotiations were ongoing and Ghana had unimpeached access to drilling new wells.<\/p>\n
Perhaps, Ghana should have stuck to that decision because in the end we may return to the same process to resolve the dispute.<\/p>\n
However, if that becomes the case, the plausibility argument may strengthen Cote d\u2019Ivoire\u2019s position at the bargaining table.<\/p>\n
Let me end with Kojo Annan\u2019s quote that \u201cthe hitherto gung-ho ‘Ivory Coast has no case’ attitude should give way to a more sobered stance.\u201d<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Author: Dr Kwadwo Appiagyei-Atua<\/strong><\/p>\n (Senior Lecturer in Public International Law, School of Law, University of Ghana, Legon)<\/strong><\/p>\n <\/p>\n By: citifmonline.com\/Ghana<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" The genesis of the dispute between Ghana and Cote d\u2019Ivoire over the delimitation of its maritime boundaries stems from the decision of Ghana to apply for extension of its continental shelf following the discovery of oil in commercial quantities in its maritime zone. The continental shelf is made up of the seabed and subsoil of […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":5,"featured_media":112088,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[],"tags":[8],"yoast_head":"\n