14. starptautiskā konference 2012 - Latvijas Jūras akadēmija

Proceedings of 14th International conference „Maritime Transport and Infrastructure - 2012”very beginning of these negotiations. In relation to territorial sea Latvia proposed prolongation of landborder direction at sea, so applying historical method. That was declined by Lithuanian delegation.Then Latvian delegation gave in and proposed delimitation of territorial sea by equidistance from therelevant coast method. That proposal also was declined by Lithuanian side.As to delimitation of EEZ and Continental Shelf (CSh) very different views have beenpresented. Latvia proposed application of equidistance method but Lithuania insisted on 270° azimuth(parallel) from last point of land border up to EEZ of Sweden. Basic obstacles to reach equitablesolution were economic interests as there are substantial oil fields in disputed area (Fig.2) [5].Fig.2. Oil fields on the Lithuanian – Latvian sea borderSome compromise solutions have been reached on later stages of negotiations on delimitationof territorial sea, but Lithuanian delegation was obstinate and persisted on parallel method on EEZ/CSh delimitation. Negotiations passed many unsuccessful stages. This situation was influenced also byLatvia concluding and ratifying in Saeima agreement with AMOCO oil company in October 1995.Licence for this company was extended up to outer end of disputed EEZ/ CSh area.In 1999 negotiations were activated in response to political pressure from Latvian rulingparties and President to conclude maritime delimitation agreement with Lithuania without delay, sodemonstrating European Union that Latvia has no border conflicts with neighbouring countries.In May 1999 in Palanga both delegations signed the “Agreement between the Republic ofLatvia and the Republic of Lithuania on the delimitation of the territorial sea, exclusive economic zoneand continental shelf in the Baltic Sea” [6]. This Agreement on 9 th July 1999 was signed also by PrimeMinisters of both countries. Then Latvian–Lithuanian Maritime Delimitation agreement was sent toLatvian Parliament – Saeima for ratification, but passed only 1 st reading, while Lithuanian Parliament– Seimas ratified it in October 1999 by almost unanimous vote.Numerous attempts to resume the ratification process in Latvia further failed. The 1999Agreement was used for practical application for cartography, for search and rescue purposes and forfishing. This delimitation was unilaterally also confirmed by Lithuanian national legislation [7] but notby Latvian national legislation.It is apparent that maritime delimitation as in 1999 Latvia – Lithuania Agreement is notcomplying nether with the principle of equidistance nor equity. This Agreement was driven bypolitical motives of that time rather than following basic provisions of UNCLOS 82, which shall be7