14. starptautiskā konference 2012 - Latvijas Jūras akadēmija

Proceedings of 14th International conference „Maritime Transport and Infrastructure - 2012”applied now as this convention is ratified by both countries. 1999 Latvia–Lithuania maritimedelimitation Agreement is not in national interests of Latvia, need to be denounced and the applicationfor International Court of Justice (ICJ) hearing is submitted. Such proposal of legal expert wasrecently published in Latvian Journal “Jurista Vārds”, where Liene Eglaja, Mg.Sc., has presentedexcellent analysis of history of this Agreement and proposal for future actions to rectify thesituation [8].There are many ICJ Judgments where the three stage method of testing of delimitation isapplied. On the first stage the preliminary equidistance line was drawn. Then this delimitation linemay be adjusted to take into account the specific circumstances for reaching equitable solution. Duringthe third stage the proportionality test may be applied if necessary to confirm the equity ofdelimitation.Such method was used in ICJ Judgment for Maritime Delimitation in the Black Sea, Romaniav. Ukraine case of 3rd February 2009. On the first stage in this Romania–Ukraine case the preliminaryequidistance line was drawn, then the relevant coast and relevant marine area was examined anddisproportionality test of relevant coast and relevant marine area was made. The final Judgement infact confirmed the delimitation of the first stage, i.e., made by equidistance method [9]. This ICJJudgment resolved which country has the right to exploit oil and natural gas deposits in disputedarea, which may total about 100 billion cubic meters of natural gas and 100 million metric tons ofcrude oil. This ICJ Judgment case is a good example for Latvia confirming necessity to be more proactiveand not to be afraid of submission Latvia – Lithuania delimitation case for independentjudgment of International body.3. Maritime delimitation with SwedenSweden was the first of two countries who unilaterally established EEZ / CShdelimitation applicable to Baltic Sates. This was also in regard to Latvia. In 1992 SwedishGovernment adopted the Ordinance on Sweden's Exclusive Economic Zone, 3 December 1992, werein paragraph 6. in the Central and Northern Baltic Sea straight lines (loxodromes) between the 17points were confirmed [10].The delimitation line in regard to Baltic States apparently has been taken from 1988 USSR–Sweden delimitation Agreement, where the principles of disputed area delimitation was agreed as 75%in favour of Sweden in exchange of fishing quotas 75% in favour of USSR [11].Should Latvia inherit USSR-Sweden delimitation of EEZ / CSh the opinions are different.Sweden naturally was positive on that opinion; same internationally recognized legal experts (viz. ErikFrankx) also support this delimitation principle [12].This is not in line with general rule adopted by Latvian Parliament in 1991 saying thatagreements signed by USSS are not binding for Latvia. There were no maritime delimitationnegotiations in early 1990 between Sweden and Latvia ( at least to the knowledge of author) whentheoretically new delimitation could be negotiated. Now that possibility is lost, especially because in2005 Latvia submitted to UN Law of the Sea commission very similar delimitation points as inSweden Government 1992 Ordinances. It was confirmed by Latvia submission to UN Law of the SeaCommission that “points A4-A14 are according with the Agreement between the USSR and Sweden1988 which is de facto observed. [13] Even in case this 2005 submission from Latvia would not bemade, the 20 year period for fishing quotas revision as in USSR-Sweden Agreement have expired in2008 and does not apply as now all fishing activities are under European Union ruling. All this makedelimitation line with Sweden clearly established and leave no chance to new negotiations.At the same time official bi-partial Agreement with Sweden need to be concluded but first thecommon point with Lithuania and Sweden be established.8