Memorial of Romania

Document Number
14697
Document Type
Date of the Document
Document File
Document

INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE

CASE CONCERNING MARITIME

DELIMITATION IN THE BLACK SEA

(ROMANIA v. UKRAINE)

MEMORIAL

SUBMITTED BY

ROMANIA

19 AUGUST 2005 TABLE OF CONTENTS

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION 5

(1) The dispute submitted to the Court 5
(2) The Court’s jurisdiction over the dispute 5
(3) Summary of Romania’s Position 9
(4) The structure of this Memorial
11
PART I GEOGRAPHICAL, HISTORICAL AND
DIPLOMATIC BACKGROUND 13

CHAPTER 2 THE GEOGRAPHICAL SITUATION 14
(1) The general geographical setting 14

(2) Brief introduction on Serpents’ Island 17
CHAPTER 3 THE HISTORICAL BACKGROUND 20
(1) Earlier period
20
(2) The period 1700-1939 20
(3) Serpents’ Island in and after World War II 27

(4) The Events of 1948 29
CHAPTER 4 MARITIME BOUNDARY

NEGOTIATIONS AFTER 1948 31
(1) Introduction 31
(2) Negotiations and agreements concluded with the Soviet Union 31
(a) The land border and the maritime boundary around
Serpents’ Island
31
(b) Subsequent continental shelf and exclusive economic zone
negotiations with the Soviet Union 43
(3) Negotiations with Ukraine following its independence 43
(a)The 1997 treaties
43
(b) The 2003 Border Regime Treaty 45
(c) Negotiations in relation to the continental shelf and the exclusive
economic zones
47
(4) Conclusions 49
CHAPTER 5 THE INFLUENCE OF HISTORY 51
CHAPTER 6 EXISTING DELIMITATIONS IN THE

BLACK SEA 61
(1) Introduction 61
(2) Delimitation Agreements with and between third States 63
(a) Turkey/USSR (Ukraine, Georgia, Russian Federation) 63
(b) Turkey/Bulgaria
65
(3) Relevance of other delimitations to the Court’s task 69
PART II THE APPLICABLE LAW AS AGREED
BY THE PARTIES 73

CHAPTER 7 APPLICABLE BILATERAL TREATIES 74
(1) Paramountcy of agreement in maritime delimitation 74

2(2) Relevant agreements between Romania and Ukraine
78
(a) The Romanian-Soviet Proces Verbaux concluded in 1949, 1963 and 78
1974
(b) The Treaty on Relations 79
(c) The Additional Agreement 80

(d) The 2003 Border Regime Treaty 81
(3) Conclusions
82
CHAPTER 8 THE PRINCIPLES IDENTIFIED IN THE
ADDITIONAL AGREEMENT 83
(1) Introduction 83

(2) Article 121 of the 1982 UNCLOS 84
(a) The origins of Article 121 84
(i) The travaux préparatoires of the 1982 UNCLOS
84
(ii) Romania’s Declaration concerning Article 121 91
(b) Significance of the applicability of Article 121 94

(c) Article 121 in the jurisprudence of this Court and other tribunals 95
(3) The principle of equidistance: adjacent and opposite coasts 98
(4) The principle of equity and the method of proportionality
102
(5) The principle of non-contestation of territory 108
(6) The principle of taking into account special circumstances 108
(a) The provisional equidistance/median line and special circumstances 110

(b) Islands as a special circumstance 113
(i) Judicial and arbitral decisions 114
(ii) State practice 122
(iii) Conclusions
127
(c) The enclosed nature of the Black Sea as a special circumstance 128
(7) Conclusions 128
PART III THE EQUITABLE SOLUTION 130

CHAPTER 9 RELEVANT COASTS AND
RELEVANT AREAS 131
(1) Introduction: the two sectors of delimitation 131
(2) Determination of the relevant coasts 134

(3) The relevant area 139
CHAPTER 10 SERPENTS’ ISLAND AS A ROCK
WITHIN THE SCOPE OF ARTICLE

121(3) OF THE 1982 UNCLOS 141
(1) Introduction 141
(2) The meaning of the term “rocks” in Article 121(3) 142
(i) Serpents’ Island is a rocky formation 146

(ii) Serpents’ Island is devoid of water sources other than rainfall and
practically devoid of soil, vegetation and fauna 154
(iii) Serpents’ Island is incapable of sustaining human habitation 163
(iv) Serpents’ Island is incapable of sustaining any economic life of its 173
own
(3) Ukraine recent activities on Serpents’ Island cannot change its qualification as a
rock within the scope of Article 121(3)

179
(4) Conclusions 193

3CHAPTER 11 THE MARITIME BOUNDARY
ACCORDING TO THE APPLICABLE
LAW 195
(1) Introduction 195
(2) Sector 1: the boundary between adjacent coasts – from Point F around Serpents’

Island and to the median line 195
(a) Introduction: the primacy of agreement in maritime delimitation 195
(b) The agreed boundary around Serpents’ Island
198
(c) Confirmation of the maritime boundary following the 12 nm arc
around Serpents’ Island in official maps produced by the USSR and
Ukraine, by Romania and by third States 206
(d) Agreement as to the applicability of Article 121 (3) of the 1982

UNCLOS (paragraph 4 (a) of the Additional Agreement) 213
(e) The maritime boundary around Serpents’ Island would be the same
independent of any agreement between the Parties 214
(f) The point of departure of the maritime boundary from the 12 nm arc

around Serpents’ Island 215
(g) The course of the boundary beyond Point X 217
(h) The course of the boundary in Sector 1 223

(3) Sector 2: The boundary between opposite coasts (Romania/Crimean Peninsula)
225
(a) The provisional median line in Sector 2 225

(b) The location of Point T – the turning point between Sector 1 and
Sector 2 229
(c) Identifying relevant/special circumstances in Sector 2 229
(d) The course of the boundary in Sector 2 229

(4) The maritime boundary between the exclusive economic zones and the
continental shelf of Romania and Ukraine in the Black Sea 231
CHAPTER 12 EQUITABLENESS OF THE
DELIMITATION LINE 233

(1) Introduction 233
(2) The proportionality test 233
(3) The principle of no cut-off 234
(4) The necessity to protect security interests of States
236

SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS 238

SUBMISSION 240

LIST OF ANNEXES 242

LIST OF MAPS 251

4 CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

(1) The dispute submitted to the Court

1.1 This Memorial is filed in accordance with the Court’s Order of 19 November

2004. In conformity with ar ticle 49, paragraph 1 of th e Rules of the Court, it

sets forth the grounds of fact and of law on which the claim contained in

Romania’s Application, filed in the Registry of the Court on 16 September

2004, is based.

1.2 The geographical configuration of the coasts of the two States facing the Black

Sea is shown on Figure 1 (page 8 of this Memorial). Also shown is Serpents’

Island (in Romanian Insula Şerpilor, in Ukrainian Oстров Зміїний), a small

featureless rock some 20 nm off the Danube delta, which was detached from

Romania in 1948 in circumstances descri bed below and which now belongs to

Ukraine.

1.3 The present dispute concerns the delim itation of the boundary of the exclusive

economic zones and continental shelf appertaining to Romania and Ukraine

respectively in the Black Sea.

(2) The Court’s jurisdiction over the dispute

1.4 The Court’s task in the present case is framed and determined by three treaties

concluded between the two States in the period since 1997. They are:

• the Treaty on the Relations of Good Neighbourliness and Co-operation

between Romania and Ukraine, signed at Constan ţa, on 2 June 1997

(hereafter the “Treaty on Relations”); TFPT

TPT Treaty on the Relations of Good Neighbourliness and Co-Operation between Romania and
Ukraine, signed at Constanţa, on 2 June 1997; 2159 United Nations Treaty Series 335 (Annex RM 1).
5 • the Agreement Additional to the Treaty on Relations, concluded by

exchange of letters of the Ministers of Foreign Affairs of the two States,
2
also dated 2 June 1997 (hereafter the “Additional Agreement”); TPFPT

• the Treaty between Romania and Uk raine on the Romanian-Ukrainian

State Border Regime, Collaboration and Mutual Assistance on Border

Matters, signed at Cern ăuţi, on 17 June 2003 (hereafter, the “2003
3
Border Regime Treaty”). TPFPT

The first two agreements entered into force simultaneously on 22 October 1997.

The 2003 Border Regime Treaty entered into force on 27 May 2004. TFPT

1.5 Article 4(h) of the Additional Agreement provides that:

“If these negotiations shall not determine the conclusion of the

above-mentioned agreement [for the maritime boundary] in a
reasonable period of time, but not later than 2 years since their

initiation, the Government of Ro mania and the Government of
Ukraine have agreed that the problem of delimitation of the

continental shelf and the excl usive economic zones shall be
solved by the UN International Court of Justice, at the request of

any of the parties, provided that the Treaty on the regime of the

State border between Romania and Ukraine has entered into
force. However, should the In ternational Court of Justice

consider that the delay of the entering into force of the Treaty on
the regime of the State border is the result of the other Party’s

fault, it may examine the request concerning the delimitation of
the continental shelf and the exclusive economic zones before the

entry into force of this Treaty.”

1.6 Accordingly, pursuant to Article 4(h), there were two prec onditions which had

to be fulfilled before the dispute could be referred to the Court. These were,

first , that the negotiations had not result ed in an agreed delimitation of the

maritime boundary between the two Stat es within two years since their

initiation, and, second , that the treaty relating to the border regime between the

2
TPT Agreement Additional to the Treaty on the Relations of Good Neighbourliness and Co-
Operation between Romania and Ukraine, concluded by exchange of letters between the Ministers of
Foreign Affairs of Romania and Ukraine, done on 2 June 1997; 2159 United Nations Treaty Series 357

(Romanian letter), 363 (Ukrainian counterpart) (Annex RM 2).
TPT Treaty between Romania and Ukraine on the Romanian-Ukrainian State Border Regime,
Collaboration and Mutual Assistance on Border Matters, signed at Cern ặuţi, on 17 June 2003 ( Annex

RM 3). The Treaty was registered with the Secretariat of the United Nations on 10 September 2004 by
Romania, and was assigned registration no. 40547.
TPT See the Protocol on the Exchange of Instruments of Ratification, signed in Mamaia, on 27 May
2004 (Annex RM 4).

6 two States had entered into force. In relation to the second condition, even if

the treaty on the border regime had not entered into force, the dispute could

have been referred to the C ourt by either Party if the delay of entry into force
were due to the fault of the other.

1.7 As noted above, the 2003 Border Regime Treaty entered into force on 27 May

2004, the date of the exchange of the in struments of ratification. Accordingly,
the second condition specified by the Additional Agreement was fulfilled.

1.8 Between 1998 and 2004, 24 rounds of negotiations were held between the

Parties to the present proceedings on th e subject of the establishment of the

maritime boundary, as well as 10 rounds at expert level. As the negotiations did
not result in an agreement on the delimitation of the maritime areas within 2

years from their commencement, the first condition set in the Additional

Agreement was also fulfilled.

1.9 The two conditions specified in article 4( h) of the Additional Agreement being

fulfilled, the Court has jurisdiction over the present dispute between Romania
and Ukraine in accordance with article 36(1) of its Statute.

7Figure 1

General View of the Black Sea (3) Summary of Romania’s Position

1.10 The delimitation upon which the Court is called to rule is to be effected in an

area where - Serpents' Island apart - no major circumstance could pose

problems as to the equitable solution to be achieved. There are no outstanding

territorial claims. The geographical context of the delimitation is a simple one

and the boundary between the maritime zones to which each of the Parties is

entitled can be readily drawn. The agr eements in force between Romania and

Ukraine established clearly the first segment of the maritime boundary, as well
as the principles of delimitation for the remainder of the boundary.

1.11 Taking into account the geographical background, the delimitation needs to be

discussed and determined in two broad sectors. Sector 1 is the sector from the

outer limit of the territorial sea in an easterly direction, defined by a relation of

adjacency between the mainland coasts of Romania and Ukraine. Sector 2 is

dominated by a situation of oppositeness between the mainland coasts of

Romania and Ukraine (Crimean Penins ula) and any maritime boundary will

have a southerly trajectory.

1.12 It should be emphasised that the boundary between the territorial seas of the

Parties is not included in the Applica tion presented to the Court, which only

concerns the delimitation of the Parties’ continental shelf and exclusive

economic zones. The territorial sea bounda ry is the subject of an agreement
between the Parties concluded in 2003: the agreed boundary runs from the last

point of the land boundary between the Pa rties to the point where the 12 nm

arc around Serpents’ Island intersects the Ro manian territorial sea. This part

of the boundary had already been delimited by agreements between Romania

and the USSR, to which Ukraine is bound according to the principles of State

succession, and which had been expressly recognised as binding by Ukraine

following its independence TP.PT

TPT See paras. 4.3-4.26 of Chapter 4 of this Memorial.1.13 The primary issue as to Sector 1 concerns the boundary around Serpents’

Island beyond the territorial sea bounda ry confirmed in 2003, as well as the

area immediately to the eas t of Serpents’ Island. As explained in this

Memorial, the Parties have already agreed that the maritime boundary here

goes around Serpents’ Island in an arc draw n 12 nm (nautical miles) from it.

That arc is depicted on maps agreed between the Parties, as well as maps

published by third States. The issue of the maritime boundary in Sector 1 is

determined by the following considerations:

- the existing agreements in force between the Parties establishing the

trace of the maritime boundary in the vicinity of Serpents’ Island;

- the relevant elements agreed by the Parties in the Additional

Agreement, including Article 121 of the 1982 United Nations

Convention on the Law of the Sea TF(hereafter the “1982

UNCLOS”); the Additional Agreement was concluded at a time

when Article 121, and specifically its paragraph (3), was not
7
binding on the Parties as a matter of treaty law TFPT

- the character of Serpents’ Island as a “rock” in terms of Article

121(3) of the 1982 UNCLOS;

- relevant geographical and other ci rcumstances as set out in this

Memorial.

1.14 Having regard to these considerations, the maritime boundary in the first

sector takes the form of an equidist ance line between the adjacent mainland

coasts of the Parties, qualified by the 12 nm arc drawn around Serpents’

Island. The boundary line departs from that arc at a point practically due east

of Serpents' Island, at approximately 45°14'20''N, 30°29'12''E, then it joins the

equidistance line between the mainland co asts of the Parties at a point at

approximately 45°11'59''N, 30°49'16''E and follows this equidistance line until

6
TPT United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, Montego Bay, 10 December 1982, 1833
United Nations Treaty Series 3 (in force 16 November 1994).
TPT At the moment of the entry into force of the Additional Agreement, Ukraine was not a party to
the 1982 UNCLOS. See paras. 8.31-8.35 of this Memorial.

10 it reaches the median line drawn between the opposite coasts of the Parties at

approximately 45°09'45''N., 31°08'40''E.

1.15 Sector 2 concerns the maritime boundary to be drawn between the opposite
coasts of the Parties (the Romanian co astline and the coastline of the Crimean

Peninsula (Ukraine). This sector extends southwards until it reaches maritime

areas attributable to Turkey and Bulg aria. The mainland coasts of the two

Parties in this second sector are approximately parallel, approximately equal in

length and present no special features. That being so, the maritime boundary

is a median line drawn between the opposite coasts in the direction of areas
potentially appertaining to third States.

(4) The structure of this Memorial

1.16 This Memorial consists of twelve chapters, grouped in three parts.

1.17 Part I consists of five chapters outlining the geographical, historical and
diplomatic background to the dispute. Chapter 2 describes the geographical

situation. Chapter 3 outlines the important hist orical background, noting the

strategic significance accorded to Serpents’ Island since at least the 19 PhP

century and detailing the circumstances surrounding its peremptory seizure by

the Soviet Union in 1948. Chapter 4 briefly outlines the maritime boundary
negotiations held between Romania a nd the Soviet Union before 1990 and

between Romania and Ukraine since then. Chapter 5 introduces the

consequences of the historical circumstances upon this case. Chapter 6 sets

out the existing maritime boundary delimitations in the Black Sea.

1.18 Part II consists of two chapters an alysing the applicable law. Chapter 7

describes the treaties which are binding on the Parties and which relate to the

present delimitation. Chapter 8 details the applicable law to which these

treaties refer.

1.19 Part III sets out the maritime boundary which in Romania’s view follows

from the applicable law and which represents an equitable solution. Chapter 9

11 identifies the relevant coasts and the relevant areas. Chapter 10 deals with the

status of Serpents’ Island as a “rock” within the meaning of Article 121(3) of
the 1982 UNCLOS. Chapter 11 deals in turn with th e two sectors referred to

above, detailing the appropriate course of the boundary in each, having regard

to the applicable law. Chapter 12 demonstrates the equitable character of the

boundary so described.

1.20 Filed with this Memorial are 2 volumes of documentary annexes and a volume

of maps (Map Atlas).

12 PARTI

GEOGRAPHICAL , ISTORICAL ANDIPLOMATIC

BACKGROUND CHAPTER 2

THE GEOGRAPHICAL SITUATION

(1) The general geographical setting

2.1 Romania and Ukraine border the Black S ea, an enclosed sea connected with

the Mediterranean by the Bosphorus Stra its via the Sea of Marmara and the

Dardanelles (Çanakkale) Straits, and w ith the Azov Sea by the Kerch Straits.

The Black Sea is situated between 40 º55' and 46º37' N and 27º27' and 41º47'
2 2
E, and has a surface area of some 420,325 km PP(462,535 km Pincluding the

small Azov Sea in its north-eastern part).

2.2 There are no areas of high sea in the Bl ack Sea. All points are within 200 nm

off the coast at least one of the riparian States.

2.3 Six countries border the Black Sea: Ro mania, Bulgaria, Turkey, Georgia,
Russia and Ukraine. Figure 1 (page 8 of this Memorial) shows their

respective coastlines. As can be seen from Figure 1, the Black Sea is roughly

divided by the Crimean Peninsula, wh ich now constitute s an autonomous

republic within Ukraine. The maritim e area within wh ich the Court is

requested to draw the maritime boundary is located in the northern part of the

western basin of the Black Sea. The western basin of the Black Sea is shown

in Figure 2 (page 16 of this Memorial).

2.4 The Romanian coast in the delimitation ar ea can be divided into two distinct

sectors, also shown on Figure 2. These are in the no rth, a shorter, roughly

straight segment, corresponding to the edge of the Danube delta, and in the

south a longer, slightly curved sector. Due to the geographical situation of this

basin, the coasts of Romania and Ukraine are in a relationship of adjacency in

the northern sector whereas in the sout hern sector they are clearly opposite

coasts. Even the coast itself has a di fferentiated aspect: between the Musura

Gulf and the city of Constan ţa it is low with large beaches; towards the south

it is higher, with cliffs reaching 40 meters in height.2.5 The territory of Romania situated be tween the Danube and the Black Sea is
commonly referred to as Dobrogea, and includes most of the Danube delta

(approximately 80% of it). The northernmos t part of the delta is situated on

the Ukrainian territory.

2.6 The seabed in the relevant area represents geologically and geo-

morphologically a single mass. The continental shelf has a continuous

character, descending gra dually towards the south-east, more swiftly in the
south, without major discontinuities.

2.7 On the continental shelf in the western basin of the Black Sea, several
structures with potential gas and oil resources have been identified. They were

extensively explored by the Romanian side during the 70s and 80s.

2.8 There are very few maritime formations in the Black Sea, apart from the tiny

islets in the Bulgarian Gulf of Burgas and the Ukrainian Gulf of Berezan and

Serpents’ Island itself.

15 Figure 2

Western Basin of the Black Sea (2) Brief introduction on Serpents’ Island

8
2.9 Serpents’ Island TFis a maritime feature bordering the adjacent Romanian and

Ukrainian shores in the vicinity of the Danube delta, situated at 45°15'53"N,

30°14'41"E. As shown in Figure 2, it lays at approximately 21 miles from the

nearest point on the Romanian coast.

2P
2.10 Serpents’ Island has an area of 0.17 km P, with a circumference of 1,973 meters

and an irregular shape. It is 662 m l ong (east-west) and 440 m wide (north-

south). It has high and abrupt rocky shores which make it difficult to

approach by sea. These characteris tics can be observed in the photographs

included in this Memorial – see Figures 3 and 4 included in this Chapter (page

9
18 of this Memorial), as well as in Chapter 10 of this Memorial TP. Possessing

no natural water or harvestable resour ces and accordingly entirely dependent

on external supplies, Serpents’ Isla nd has never had a settled population.

Ukrainian officials, in particular the staff of the Ukrainian border police, are

stationed there for periods of time.

2.11 From a geological perspec tive, Serpents’ Island does not have a continental

shelf of its own, being a mere local el evation of the seabed. Geologically,

Serpents’ Island and the Dobrogea landma ss have the same origin. In the

Würm period (ca. 75,000 – 9,800 BC), Serpents’ Island was linked with

Dobrogea by a continuous landmass. Further increases and decreases of the

sea level led to complete submergence of the island, followed by its re-

emergence, which marked the present geology of the island, without effacing

its common origin with the landmass TPPT

TPT “Serpents’ Island” is the name under which th is maritime feature became to be known. Using

this name does not imply any acknowledgment by the Romanian side that this feature could be entitled
to maritime areas other than a maximum 12 nm territorial sea.
9
10T See also Annexes RM 87 to RM 91.
TPPT Vasile Cucu, Gheorghe Vl ăsceanu, Insula Şerpilor (Serpents’ Island), „Viaţa Românească”
Publishing House, Bucharest, 1991 (Annex RM 5), pp. 11-13. Figure 3

Image of Serpents’ Island
- from the 1931 volume of R.I. Călinescu ”Insula Şerpilor. Schiţă

monografică” – see Annex RM 6

Figure 4

Recent picture of Serpents’ Island2.12 The gritstone and quartz conglomerates on Serpents' Island confirm that the

present insular territory belongs to the same kimmeric link as the mountains in

northern Dobrogea. On the remnants of the littoral terrace identified in the

peninsular area in the NE, it was found red lehm ( terra rossa) dating from the

Quaternary, proof that Serpents’ Island was also once covered with terra rossa

and loess – now almost completely washed or blown away. TPFThis could also

be seen in connection with the recent Ukrainian activities which consist in

bringing soil on Serpents’ Island. TPFThe same factors that lead to the complete

disappearance of its soil in past continue to appl y, despite the Ukrainian

demarches meant to change the natural conditions of Serpents’ Island, which

are climatically condemned to failure.

TPPT Vasile Cucu, Gheorghe Vl ăsceanu, Insula Şerpilor (Serpents’ Island), „Viaţa Românească”

Publishing House, Bucharest, 1991 (Annex RM 5), p. 13.
TPPT See paras. 10.101-10.132 of this Memorial. CHAPTER 3

THE HISTORICAL BACKGROUND

13
(1) Earlier period TPFPT

3.1 Serpents’ Island was first mentioned in historical writings relating to the

Greek colonisation of the Black Sea shores in the 7 PhPcentury BC TPF.PT

3.2 Its history is connected to the legend of the Greek hero Achilles, who is said to

have been buried on the island. Remains of a sanctuary built on Serpents’

Island honouring this divinity have been found.

3.3 During the earlier period, Serpents ’ Island is shown, under various names, on

different maps of the Black Sea basi n or of the mouths of the Danube.

Enclosed to this memorial are six such maps, where Serpents’ Island appears

15
under the names of Ilanada (Ilanda, Ilan adasy, Nanada) TPF, Fidonisi

16
(Phidonisi) or Leuce. TPFFPT

(2) The period 1700-1939

th th
3.4 Given the strategic importance of the region, the 18 P Pand 19 P Pcenturies

witnessed continuous rivalry between Russia and the Ottoman Empire over the

mouths of the Danube and th e water routes it provided, as well as the Black

Sea straits. Dobrogea and the Danube delta were integral parts of the Ottoman

Empire. Serpents’ Island, situated immediately off the delta, was likewise part

of the Ottoman Empire.

13
TPPT The historical evolution of the geo-political situation at the mouths of the Danube, including

Serpents’ Island, is relevant in order to understand the context of the delimitation of the maritime areas
of Romania and Ukraine in the Black Sea.
14
TPPT Historical sources point to the existence of close links between harbours established by Greek
settlers on the western coast of the Black Sea and the indigenous populations of the mainland, the

15ythians and the Gets, forebears of the Romanian people.
TPPT Meaning “Serpents’ Island” in Turkish.
16
TPPT See Maps RM A1, RM A2, RM A3, RM A4, RM A5 and RM A6 in the Map Atlas.3.5 In 1812, by the Peace Treaty of Bucharest, TPFFRussia annexed the eastern part

of Moldova (which was known as Bessara bia), thus becoming a riparian State

on the Danube. The frontier between Russia (Bessarabia) and Turkey

(Dobrogea) was established on the Kilia arm of the Danube, on either side of

the Ochakov channel (in the north of the secondary delta of the Kilia arm). TPFFPT

Serpents’ Island was unaffected.

3.6 In 1829 when, by the Treaty of Adri anopole, concluded between the Ottoman

19
Empire and the triumphant Russia on 2/14 September 1829, TPFFthe two States

established the frontier between them on the Saint George arm of the Danube

(the southernmost arm in the Danube de lta). Article III of the Treaty stated

that Bessarabia and the whole Danube de lta would become Russian territory.

Although the Treaty did not contain any di rect reference to Serpents’ Island

and did not provide for its inclusion within the Russian territory, Russia

assumed control over Serpents’ Island and in 1842 built a lighthouse on the

island in order to assist navigation in the Black Sea.

3.7 Article XX of the General Treaty of Peace of 30 March 1856 (the Treaty of

Paris) concluded after the Crimean War, provided for the Russian retrocession

of part of Bessarabia and the Danube delta to the Ottoman Empire. Article

XXI annexed the area thereby retroceded to the Principality of Moldova. By

Articles XXII and XXIII the Romanian Principalities of Moldova and

Walachia were guaranteed autonomy under the suze rainty of the Ottoman

20
Empire. TPFFPT

3.8 The Treaty of Paris did not make expre ss reference to the status of Serpents’

TPPT Treaty of Peace between Russia and Turkey, Bucharest, 16(28) May 1812, reproduced in

18nsolidated Treaty Series , vol. 62, p. 25.
TPPT Ibid., Article 4.
TPPT Treaty of Peace between Russia and Turkey, Adrianopole, 2/14 September 1829, reproduced

in Consolidated Treaty Series, vol. 80, p. 83; Martens, Nouveau Recueil des Traités, vol. VIII, p. 143;
British and Foreign State Papers, vol. XVI, p. 647; E. Hertslet, The Map of Europe by Treaty (London,
Butterworths/Harrison, 1875), vol. II (1828-1863), p. 813.
20
TPPT General Treaty for the Re-Establishment of Peace between Austria, France, Great Britain,
Prussia, Sardinia and Turkey, and Russia, Paris, 18/30 March 1856, reproduced in Consolidated Treaty

21 Island. The issue was regulated by the Protocol concluded on 6 January 1857

in Paris between the representatives of the European Powers parties to the

Treaty of Paris. TPFPThis was the first international agreement expressly to

mention Serpents’ Island. It stated as follows:

“Islands in Delta of the Danu be to be replaced under
Sovereignty of Turkey.

The Plenipotentiaries agree that the Islands included between
the different branches of the Danube at its mouth, and forming
the Delta of that River, as shown by the Plan No.2 hereunto

annexed, and initialled, shall, in stead of being annexed to the
Principality of Moldavia, as stipulated by Article XXI of the
Treaty of Paris, be replaced under the immediate Sovereignty

of the Sublime Porte, of which they formerly held.

Isle of Serpents to be an Appendage of Delta of the Danube.

The Plenipotentiaries agree, more over, that the Treaty of Paris

having, like the Treaties previous ly concluded between Russia
and Turkey, been silent with regard to the Isle of Serpents, that
Island is to be considered as an appendage to the Delta of the

Danube, and must, in consequence follow its destination.

Lighthouse to be maintained on Isle of Serpents.

In the general interest of maritime commerce, the Ottoman

Government engages to maintain on that Island a Lighthouse
destined to render secure the navigation of vessels proceeding
to the Danube and to the Po rt of Odessa; the River

Commission, established by Artic le XVII of the Treaty of
Paris, for the purpose of maintain ing the Mouths of that River,
and the neighbouring parts of the Se a, in a navigable state, will
see to the regular performan ce of the service of such

Lighthouse.

Protocol to have the force of a Convention. Boundary
Convention to be signed.

Series, vol. 114, p. 409; Martens, Nouveau Recueil Général, vol. XV, p. 770; British and Foreign State
Papers, vol. XLVI, p. 8; Hertslet,The Map of Europe by Treaty, vol. II (1828-1863), p. 1250.
TPPT Protocol of Conference fixing the Boundaries of Russia, the Principalities and Turkey,
between Austria, France, Great Britain, Prussia, Russia, Sardinia and Turkey , Paris, 6 January 1857,

reproduced in Consolidated Treaty Series , vol. 116, p. 155, Martens, Nouveau Recueil Général , vol.
XV, p. 793; British and Foreign State Papers , vol. XLVII, p. 92; Hertslet, The Map of Europe by
Treaty, vol. II (1828-1863), p. 1298.

22 The present Protocol shall have the same force and validity as
if it had assumed the form of a Convention; but it is understood

that, when the Boundary Commi ssion shall have concluded its
labours a Convention shall be signed by the High Contracting
Parties recording the Frontier such as it shall have been

established by the Commissioners, and the resolutions taken on
the subject of the Isle of Serpents and the Delta of the Danube.”

3.9 Annex 2 to the Protocol was a map showing the delta of the Danube stretching

from the Kilia Channel in the north to the St George’s Channel in the south,

with Serpents’ Island shown off-shore as appurtenant to the delta. TPFPT

3.10 As expressly envisaged in the Protoc ol, these provisions were embodied in a

further Treaty relative to the Frontier in Bessarabia, the Isle of Serpents, and
23
the Delta of the Danube, signed at Paris on 19 June 1857. TPFPThis provided

relevantly as follows:

“Islands at Mouths of the D anube to be under Sovereignty of
Sultan of Turkey.

ART.II. The Contracting Powers agree that the Islands

included between the different branches of the Danube at its
mouth, and forming the Delta of that river, as shown by the
th
Plan annexed to the Protocol of the 6 P Pof January, 1857, shall,
instead of being annexed to the Principality of Moldavia, as

implied in the stipulations of Article XXI of the Treaty of Paris,
be replaced under the immediat e Sovereignty of the Sublime

Porte, of which they formerly held.

Turkish sovereignty over Island of Serpents.

ART.III. The Treaty of the 30 PhPMarch, 1856, having, like

the Treaties previously concl uded between Russia and Turkey,

22
TPPT Parliamentary Papers, 1857, Sess. 1, vol. XVII, p. 145. The map is also reproduced in
Hertslet, The Map of Europe by Treaty , vol. II (1828-1863), following p. 1301 ( Map RM A 8 in the
Map Atlas).
TPPT Treaty between Austria, France, Great Britain, Prussia, Russia, Sardinia and Turkey relative to

the Frontier in Bessarabia, the Isle of Serpents and the Danube Delta, Paris, 19 June 1857; reproduced
in Consolidated Treaty Series, vol. 117, p. 59, Martens, Nouveau Recueil Général, vol. XVI(2), p. 11;
British and Foreign State Papers , vol. XLVII, p. 60; Hertslet, The Map of Europe by Treaty , vol. II
(1828-1863), p. 1320. See also the Definitive Act of the Commissioners […] relative to the Bessarabian

Frontier, Kichineff, 30 March/11 April 1957, Consolidated Treaty Series , vol. 116, p. 455, Martens,
Nouveau Recueil Général , vol. XX, p. 4; British and Foreign State Papers , vol. L, p. 1020; and
Hertslet, The Map of Europe by Treaty , vol. II (1828-1863), p. 1313, with accompanying maps ( Map
RM A 7 in the Map Atlas)

23 been silent with regard to the Isle of Serpents, and the High
Contracting Parties having agreed that it was proper to consider

that Island as a dependency of the Delta of the Danube, its
destination is fixed according to the arrangement of the

preceding Article.

Maintenance by Turkey of Lighthouse on Island of Serpents.

ART.IV. In the general inte rest of maritime commerce,

the Sublime Porte engages to maintain on the Isle of Serpents a
Lighthouse destined to afford se curity to the navigation of

vessels proceeding to the Danube and to the port of Odessa.
The River Commission establis hed by Article XVII of the
th
Treaty of the 30 P Pof March, 1856, for the purpose of
maintaining the mouths of that river and the neighbouring parts

of the sea in a navigable state, will see to the regular
performance of the service of such Lighthouse.”

24 25
3.11 The next development of note TPFwas the Treaty of Berlin of 13 July 1878. TPFFPT

By Article 43 the parties recognised th e independence of Romania, subject to

certain conditions. Articles 45 and 46 provided as follows:

“Art.XLV. The Principality of Roumania restores to His
Majesty the Emperor of Russia th at portion of the Bessarabian

territory detached from Russia by the Treaty of Paris of 1856,
bounded on the west by the mid-channel of the Pruth, and on

the south by the mid-channel of the Kilia Branch and the Stary-
Stamboul mouth.

Art. XLVI. The islands forming the Delta of the Danube, as

well as the Isle of Serpents are added to Roumania. The
Principality receives in addition the territory situated to the

TPPT In the meantime, following th e double election of Alexandru Ioan Cuza as prince of Moldova
(5 January 1859) and Walachia (24 January 1859), the two Romanian principalities merged to form a

25itary State, officially named Romania.
TPPT Treaty between Austria-Hungary, France, Germ any, Great Britain, Ital y, Russia and Turkey
for the Settlement of Affairs in the East, Berlin, 13 July 1978, reproduced in Consolidated Treaty
Series, vol. 153, p. 171; Martens, Nouveau Recueil Général des Traités (2 PdSeries), vol. III, p. 449;

British and Foreign State Papers , vol. LXIX, p. 749; Hertslet, The Map of Europe by Treaty
(HMSO/Harrison, 1891), vol. IV (1875-1891), p. 2759.
By Art. XIX of the Pr eliminary Treaty of Peace between Russia and Turkey , San Stefano, 19
February/3 March 1878, ( Consolidated Treaty Series , vol. 152, p. 395; British and Foreign State
nd
Papers, vol. LXIX, p. 732; Martens Nouveau Recueil Général des Traités (2 P Series), vol. III, p. 246;
Hertslet, The Map of Europe by Treaty, vol. IV (1875-1891), p. 2672), Russia, although consenting to
accept cession of certain territories (including Serpen ts’ Island) as a substitute for the payment of war

reparations, declared that it did not wish to annex the delta, the delta islands and Serpents’ Island, and
“se reserve la faculté de les échanger contra la par tie de la Bessarabie détachée par le Traité de 1856”
[“reserves the right of exchanging them for the part of Bessarabia detached by the Treaty of 1856” (i.e.
the Treaty of Paris)].

24 south of the Dobroutcha as far as a line starting from the east of

Silistria and terminating on the Black Sea, south of Mangalia.

The frontier line shall be determined on the spot by the
European Commission appointed for the delimitation of

Bulgaria.”

3.12 No map was attached to the Treaty of Berlin, but the situation of Serpents’

Island was perfectly clear from the text. The reproduction of the English

language translation of the Trea ty of Berlin in Hertslet’s The Map of Europe

26
by Treaty TPFFappends maps which show the boundary so drawn, with Serpents’

Island appertaining to Romania.

3.13 It is significant that, although the Treaty retroceded to Russia “that portion of

the Bessarabian territory detached fr om Russia by the Treaty of Paris of

1856”, this territory did not include the delta islands or Serpents’ Island.

3.14 Following the Treaty of Berlin, a bilateral Commission reached partial

agreement on the demarcation of the boundary in the delta region, and the
27
demarcation was recorded in a Pr ocès Verbal of 5/17 December 1878. TTFPTT

Although some of the places and islands mentioned in the Procès Verbal can

be located with certainty on modern ma ps, others cannot, the coastline here

having changed substantially since 1878 due to the accretion of the delta. But

like the Treaty of Berlin itself, the Procès Verbal of 17 December 1878 did not

affect Serpents’ Island.

3.15 Due to its importance for security in this area, during th e First World War,

Serpents’ Island was scene of several war episodes, such as the bombing of the

lighthouse by German forces, its occupa tion by Russian soldiers and the

TPPHertslet, The Map of Europe by Treaty, vol. IV (1875-1891), maps following pp. 2790 and

2798 (Map RM A 9 in the Map Atlas)
TPPT Procès-Verbal of the Commission (Roumania and Russia) for the Delimitation of the Territory
retroceded to Russia by Art. XLV of the Treaty of Berlin, Bucharest, 5/17 December 1878, reproduced
in Consolidated Treaty Series, vol. 153, p. 495; British and Foreign State Papers , vol. LXX, p. 693;

Hertslet, The Map of Europe by Treaty, vol. IV (1875-1891), p. 2842.

25 sinking of a Russian torpedo-carrier by German mines TPF.PT

3.16 Bessarabia again became part of Romania following a decision taken on 9

April 1918 by the Bessarabian State Assembly ( Sfatul Ţării). Russia did not

formally accept the re-union of Bessarabi a with Romania. This controversy

does not, however, affect Serpents’ Island.

3.17 To summarise, since the 1878 Berlin Peace Treaty, that formally consecrated

Romania’s independence, until the outbreak of World War II, Serpents’ Island

was under Romanian sovereignty. It was not treated as part of Bessarabia, but

was acknowledged to be appurtenant to the Danube delta (the area from St

George’s Mouth in the south to the Kilia Mouth in the north). As mentioned

above, there was multilateral recognitio n in the Protocol of 1857 and the

subsequent treaty on the fr ontier that Serpents’ Isla nd was appurtenant to the

delta.

3.18 It may be noted that the Europe an Danube Commission (headquartered in

Galatz (Galaţi), Romania) undertook some work s on Serpents’ Island as part

of its mandate to maintain the conditi ons for navigation on the Danube. In

particular it rebuilt the beacon on Serpents’ Island which served for

navigational purposes before the Second World War. TPFPT

3.19 The attention given by the European pow ers to the mouths of the Danube (the

Danube delta) and to Serpents’ Island, shown by the conclu sion of these

instruments, is a proof of the geo-strate gic importance of these regions at that

time.

28
TPPT See R.I. Calinescu, Insula Şerpilor. Schi ţă monografic ă (Serpents’ Island. Monographic
Study), published in the Analele Dobrogei magazine, “Glasul Bucovinei” Publishing House, Cern ăuţi,
1931 (Annex RM 6), pp. 50-51.
29
TPPT Ibid., p. 50.

26 (3) Serpents’ Island in and after World War II

3.20 After the outbreak of the Second Wo rld War, the Soviet Union took the

opportunity to reassert its claim over Bessarabia, adding to it a new claim to

part of Bukovina. Following the conc lusion of the Ribbentrop-Molotov Pact

and its secret additional protocol TPF, a Soviet ultimatum was sent to the

Romanian Government of 26 June 1940. It stated as follows:

“The Soviet Government consider s that the issue of the return
of Bessarabia is organically linked with the issue of the handing

over to the USSR of that part of Bukovina where the population
is linked in its great majority with the Soviet Ukraine by the
common historical destiny as well as by the language

community and national composition. Such an act would be
justified since the handing over of the northern part of

Bukovina to the USSR could repr esent, even though to a small
degree, a means of compensation of that great loss caused to

the USSR and Bessarabian population by the 22 years of
Romanian domination of Bessarabia.

The USSR Government proposes to the Royal Government of
Romania:

1. to return Bessarabia to the Soviet Union;

2. to hand over to the Soviet Union the northern part of
Bukovina with the borders in accordance with the

enclosed map.

The Soviet Government hopes th at the Romanian Government

will accept the present proposals of the USSR and this will give
an opportunity to peacefully solve the long-lasting conflict
31
between USSR and Romania.” TPFFPT

The Soviet ultimatum did not include any demand in relation to Serpents’

Island.

TPPT The Pact and its additional protocol established the sphères d’influence of Germany and the

USSR in Europe. Its conclusion and arbitrary character were condemned both by the Soviet/ Russian
authorities (e.g. the Decision of the Congress of the People’s Deputies regarding the legal and political
aspects of the 1939 Russ o-German Non-Aggression Pact, adop ted on 24 December 1989) and in the
bilateral Romanian-Russian framework (e.g., in the Joint Declaration of the ministries of foreign affairs
of Romania and the Russian Federation, signed at Moscow on 4 July 2003) and internationally (e.g.,
tP
31e recent statements made with the occasion of the 50 P anniversary of the conclusion of Word War II).
TPPT Note of 27 June 1940 to the Romanian Mission in Moscow (Annex RM 7).

273.21 In response Romania proposed a meeting to discuss the situation. In a Soviet

note of 28 June 1940 the Soviet Government rejected the reply as “unclear”

because it had failed to accept the S oviet proposition, and it set down a
32
timetable for Romanian withdrawal. TPFPT

3.22 Romania had no choice but to accept this timetable, and, in the response to the

note of 28 June 1940, accepted the withdrawal of the Romanian administration
33
from Bessarabia and Northern Bukovina. TPFPSerpents’ Island was not included

in the said territory.

3.23 In August 1940, the Moldavian Soviet Socialist Republic was founded on part

of the territory ceded to the USSR by Romania. The southern part of

Bessarabia was not included in the territo ry of the newly-established Soviet

Socialist Republic but was incorporated into the territory of the Ukrainian

Soviet Socialist Republic.

3.24 Work began on delimitation of the resulting boundary but was stopped in

November 1940 when Soviet troops occ upied certain islands in the Danube

delta (but not Serpents’ Island). In 1941 the Romanian army evicted the

Soviet army from those positions.

3.25 During World War II, Serpents’ Island had a strategic role. On 22 June 1941 it

entered under the rule of the Commandment of the German forces in the Black

Sea and was occupied by German troops. The areas of Serpents’ Island and of

the mouths of the Danube were thea tre of naval operations between 1941 and

1944 TPFPT

3.26 After the end of Word War II, the Treaty of Peace between the Allied and

32
TPPT See the Note of 28 June 1940 to the Romanian Mission in Moscow (Annex RM 8).
TPPT See the Note of 28 June 1940 of the Romanian Mission in Moscow (Annex RM 9).
TPPT See major (retired) Silviu Ştefănescu, Din amintirile veteranilor (War Veterans’ Memories) ,

published in Revista de istorie militar ă (Military History Magazine) , issue no. 3(31)/1995, p. 48
(Annex RM 10).

28 35
Associated Powers and Romania was signed at Paris on 10 February 1947. TPFFPT

Part I provided as follows:

“FRONTIERS

Article 1

The frontiers of Roumania, s hown on the map annexed to the
present Treaty (Annex I) shall be those which existed on

January 1, 1941, with the ex ception of the Roumanian-

Hungarian frontier, which is defi ned in Article 2 of the present
Treaty.

The Soviet Roumanian frontier is thus fixed in accordance with

the Soviet Roumanian Agreement of June 28, 1940, and the
Soviet-Czechoslovak Agreement of June 29, 1945.”

3.27 The annexed map, on a scale of 1:1,500,000, which formed an integral part of

the Peace Treaty, shows the boundary proceeding down the Danube to the sea.

The text of the Treaty has no express pr ovision relating to Serpents’ Island,

which accordingly remained under the s overeignty of Romania. The map

annexed to the Peace Treaty showed Serpents’ Island as forming part of

Romania. TPFPT

(4) The Events of 1948

3.28 In order to precisely describe the trace of the Romanian-Soviet boundary, on 4

February 1948, a Protocol to Specify th e Line of the State Boundary between

the People’s Republic of Romania and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics

was concluded. TPFFPDespite the provisions of the Paris Peace Treaty, Article 1

described the boundary, in relevant part, in the following terms:

“b/ In accordance with Annex II:

along the River Danube, from Pardina to the Black Sea, leaving

the islands of T ătaru Mic, Daleru Mic and Mare, Maican and

TPP42 United Nations Treaty Series 3.
TPPSee Map RM A 10 in the Map Atlas.
37
TPPT Protocol to Specify the Line of the State Boundary between the People’s Republic of Romania
and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, signed at Moscow, on 4 February 1948 (Annex RM 11).

29 Limba on the side of the Uni on of the SSR, and the islands
Tătaru Mare, Cernovca and Babina - on the Romanian side;

Serpents’ Island, situated in th e Black Sea, eastwards from the
Danube mouth, is incorporated into the Union of the SSR .”
(emphasis added).

3.29 On 23 May 1948, a procès verbal was signed by the Deputy Foreign Minister

of Romania and the First Secretary of the Soviet Embassy. Actually signed on

Serpents’ Island, it provided in relevant part as follows:

“Acknowledging that today, at 12 h ours (local time), Serpent's

Island or Zmeinyj […], has been returned to the Soviet Union
by the People's Republic of Roma nia and integrated within the
territory of the Union of the Soviet Socialist Republics, by

signing this procès verbal the legal formali38es of the handing
over of the island have been fulfilled.” TPFPT

3.30 It should be stressed th at the term “returned” us ed by the language of the

procès verbal was not appropriate, as Serpents’ Island had never belonged to

the USSR.

3.31 After being incorporated into the Soviet territory, against the provisions of the

1947 Paris Peace Treaty, Serpents’ Island was transformed into a military

post, under the direct control of the cen tral military authorities in Moscow.

This underlines the geo-strategic reasons for which the USSR decided to

occupy Serpents’ Island, which represented an avant-poste in the Black Sea,

situated at the mouths of the Danube.

3.32 The legal status of Serpen ts’ Island as a Soviet territory is unclear, as there is

no public document providing for its incl usion within the territory of any

Soviet republic. It was only after the dissolution of the USSR that Serpents’

Island became formally part of the territory of the newly-independent Ukraine.

TPPT See the Procès verbal of Delivery-Reception, signed on Serpents’ Island, on 23 May 1948
(Annex RM 12).

30 CHAPTER 4

MARITIME BOUNDARY NEGOTIATIONS AFTER 1948

(1) Introduction

4.1. Since 1948, Romania has conducted negotiations on the issue of the

delimitation of the maritime areas in the Black Sea successively with the
Soviet Union and, after its independen ce in 1991, with Ukra ine. As these

negotiations did not produce agreement (i n particular in the area to the east

and south-east of Serpents’ Island), they are essentially of historical relevance.
On the other hand, successive agreemen ts were concluded with the Soviet

Union (by which Ukraine is bound as succ essor) concerning the area between

the land boundary and Serpents’ Island and as to the extent of the maritime

boundary going around Serpents’ Island. Moreover, although no progress of
any kind was made in the post-1997 negotiations with Ukraine on the location

of the exclusive economic zones and continental shelf boundary, the two

Parties did agree in 1997 on the criteria to be applied in those negotiations.

4.2. Romania does not rely on unperfected negotiations as a basis for the maritime

boundary it claims. On the other hand it does rely on the agreements reached
with the Soviet Union as to the maritime boundary around Serpents’ Island in

the first sector, and with Ukraine as to the criteria to be applied in delimiting

the remainder of the maritime boundary. For these purposes the course of the
negotiations leading to these agreements is relevant and is described in this

Chapter. The legal consequences of the agreements reached are analysed in

later chapters.

(2) Negotiations and agreements concluded with the Soviet Union

(a) The land border and the maritime boundary around Serpents’ Island

4.3. The land border and a significant part of the maritime boundary was

demarcated in 1948-1949 and the dema rcation incorporated in a single

document, the Procès Verbal of the De scription of the State Border Line
between the People’s Republic of Roma nia and the Union of the Soviet Socialist Republics, signed by the Jo int Soviet-Romanian Demarcation

Commission on 27 September 1949 (hereaf ter, the “September 1949 Procès

Verbal”).

4.4. According to the September 1949 Procès Verbal, the land and river border is

continued at sea by a maritime boundary, joining the final point of the river

border (Point 1437) with two successive signs (a buoy and a beacon)

representing the final border signs established by that Procès Verbal.

Specifically these were Point 1438 - buoy at 45 °11'34.97"N, 29°41'28.56"E,

and Point 1439 - beacon at 45 °08'59.21"N, 29°57'39.42"E, the latter being

situated on the 12-nm arc surrounding Serpents’ Island.

4.5. Thus, the September 1949 Procès Verbal provides in relevant part:

“From the border sign no. 1437 the boundary goes through the
middle of the Musuna (Musura) channel, in a south-south-east
direction, until the mouth of the Musuna (Musura) channel, on

the alignment no. 1, leaving Limba Island on the USSR side,
and the island no. 3 on the P.R.R. [Peoples’ Republic of
Romania] side, going to the border sign no. 1438 (buoy).

The border sign no. 1438 (buoy) is fixed (anchored) in water, in

the point of the change of the direction of the boundary line in
the Black Sea.

The border sign no. 1439 (beacon), is fixed in water, in the

point where the State boundary line going through the Black
Sea changes its direction, at the intersection of the straight line
going from the border sign no. 1438 (buoy) on the azimuth of

102°30',0, with the outer exterior margin of the Soviet marine
boundary zone, of 12 miles, surrounding Serpents’ Island.” TPFPT

The coordinates of border sign 1439 were then set out. After specifying the

distance between Points 1438 and 1439, the description continued:

“The State boundary line, fr om the border sign no. 1439
(beacon), goes on the exterior marg in of the marine boundary

zone, of 40 miles, leaving Serpents’ Isla nd on the side of the
USSR.” TPF(emphasis added)

TPPT Procès Verbal of the Description of the State Border Line between the People’s Republic of
Romania and the Union of the Soviet Socialist Republics, demarcated in 1948-1949, signed at
Bucharest, on 27 September 1949, volume III (Annex RM 13), pp. 900-901.
TPPT Ibid., p. 902

32 41
4.6. The map annexed to the September 1949 Procès Verbal TPFdepicts the boundary

so drawn, although only a small segment of the circle around Serpents’ Island

is shown.

4.7. Similarly, the individual Procès Verbal of Description of Border Sign 1438

(buoy) dated 27 September 1949 establishes that

“the boundary line, from the border sign no. 1437, passes on

the middle of watershed of th e Musuna (Musura) channel,
towards south-south-east, till the mouth of the Musuna

(Musura) channel, then on the alignment no.1, leaving the
island of Limba on the USSR side and the island no.3 on the

Romanian PR side, to the border sign no.1438 (buoy), and from
the border sign no.1438 (buoy), the State boundary in the Black

Sea passes in a straight line, on the azimuth of 102 °30',0', till it
reaches the exterior margin of the Soviet marine boundary

zone, of 12 miles, surrounding Se rpents’ Island, to the border
sign no. 1439 (beacon).” TPFFPT

4.8. The individual Procès Verbal of De scription of Border Sign 1439 (beacon)

dated 27 September 1949 stipulates that:

“the boundary line, from the border sign no. 1438 (buoy) passes

in the Black Sea, in a straight line, on the azimuth of 102°30’,0,

till it reaches the exterior margin of the Soviet marine boundary
zone, of 12 miles, surrounding Se rpents’ Island, to the border

sign no. 1439 (beacon) and from the border sign no. 1439
(beacon), the boundary passes on the exterior margin of the
Soviet marine boundary zone , of 12 miles , leaving Serpents’
43
Island on the USSR side.” TPFF(emphasis added).

4.9. The words in italics in the official languages of the September 1949 Procès

Verbal of Description of Border Sign 1439 (beacon) read as follows:

in Romanian, “ frontiera trece pe marginea exterioar ă a zonei sovietice de

frontieră marină, de 12 mile”;

in Russian, “ граница проходит по внешней линии 12- мильной морской

пограничной полосы”.

41
TPPT Map RM A 11 in the Map Atlas.
TPPT Procès Verbal of Border Sign no. 1438 (buoy), signed at Bucharest, on 27 September 1949
(Annex RM 14).
43
TPPT Procès Verbal of Border Sign no. 1439 (beacon), signed at Bucharest, on 27 September 1949
(Annex RM 15).

33 The meaning is clear and the different language versions are to the same

effect. There is a 12 mile Soviet ma rine zone going around Serpents’ Island,

and the 12 mile arc constitutes the “exterior margin” (“ marginea exterioară”;

“внешней линии”) of this zone.

4.10. Both individual Procès Verbaux of De scription of Border Signs 1438 and

1439 include bilingual (Romanian and Russian) sketches (see Figures 5 and 6

– pages 36, 37 of this Memorial) which form integral parts of them, and these

clearly show the boundary and the position of the two border signs.

4.11. It should be emphasised that the Se ptember 1949 Procès Verbal and the

individual Procès Verbal of Descrip tion of Border Sign 1439 (beacon) do not

refer to a 12-mile territorial sea, bu t to a “marine boundary zone” of 12 miles

of the USSR. There is no suggestion th at beyond this 12 nm arc there is a

further maritime zone appertaining to Serpents’ Island and cutting across the

front of the Romanian coast.

4.12. The next event of relevance occurred on 25 November 1949 in Moscow when

a Treaty was concluded between the Gove rnment of the People’s Republic of

Romania and the Government of the USSR on the Regime of the Romanian-

Soviet State Border (hereafter, the “1949 Border Regime Treaty”). TPFPChapter

I dealt with the border line, border signs and border maintenance. Article 1

provided:

“The State border line between the People’s Republic of
Romania and the Union of the Soviet Socialist Republics, fixed

in accordance with Article 1 of the Peace Treaty with Romania,
entered into force on 15 September 1947, and with the Protocol
[of 4 February 1948] passes in the field as it is determined in

the demarcation documents signed on 27 September 1949, at
Bucharest, by the Joint Sovi et-Romanian Commission for the
Demarcation of the State Border between the People’s Republic
of Romania and the Union of the Soviet Socialist Republics.”

4.13. The delimitation set out in the Sept ember 1949 Procès Verbal was thereby

embodied in the 1949 Border Regime Treaty.

44
TPPT Treaty between the Government of the People’s Republic of Romania and the Government of
the USSR on the Regime of the Romanian-Soviet State Border, sign ed at Moscow on 25 November
1949, pp. 1-2 (Annex RM 16).

344.14. In the period subsequent to 1949, seve ral further bilateral Romanian-Soviet

instruments were concluded, under which the maritime boundary between

what is now Ukraine and Romania was affirmed. No agreement suggested any

possible change to the position of th e boundary located on the 12 mile arc

around Serpents’ Island.

4.15. Thus, between 1952 and 1954, as a result of the re-location of certain border

posts and the calculation of new technical data, several bilateral documents

were signed by the border authorized officers of the two countries. Such a new

document, entitled “Act” (“ Act” in Romanian, “ Акт” in Russian), was also

concluded for the border sign 1439, as the beacon located there had

disappeared. The Act, signed in Ismail on 26 December 1954, uses practically

the same language as the 1949 individual Procès Verbal of Border Sign 1439.

It reads, in relevant part, as follows:

“the boundary line [,] from th e border sign no.1438 (buoy), passes

in the Black Sea, in a straight line, on the azimuth of 102°30’,0, till
it reaches the exterior margin of the marine boundary zone of 12
miles of the Union of the Soviet Socialist Republics surrounding

Serpents’ Island, to the border sign no.1439 (beacon) and from the
border sign no. 1439 (beacon), the boundary passes on the exterior

margin of the Soviet marine boundary zone of 145miles , leaving
Serpents’ Island on the USSR side.” FP F(emphasis added).

TPPT Act signed by the Border Authorized Officer of the People’s Republic of Romania for the
Tulcea sector and the Border Authorized Officer of the Union of the Soviet Socialist Republics for the

Ismail sector in Ismail on 26 December 1954 (Annex RM 17).

35 Figure 5

Sketch included in the Procès Verbal of Border
Point no. 1438, signed at Bucharest, on 27
September 1949 Figure 6

Sketch included in the Procès Verbal of Border

Point no. 1439, signed at Bucharest, on 27
September 19494.16. On 27 February 1961, a Treaty was concluded between the governments of

Romania and the USSR on the regime of the Romanian-Soviet State Border

(hereafter, the “1961 Border Regime Treaty”) TFP; it was expressed to be a

replacement for the 1949 Border Regi me Treaty. No modification occurred

with regard to the border between the two Parties. Thus, Chapter I, dealing

with the border line, border signs and border maintenance, specified:

“The State border line between the People’s Republic of

Romania and the Union of the Soviet Socialist Republics,
settled according to Article 1 of the Peace Treaty with
Romania, entered into force on 15 September 1947 and to the

Protocol [of 4 February 1948] passes in the field as described
in:

(a) …

(b) the demarcation documents signed on 27 September
1949 in Bucharest by the Joint Romanian-Soviet Border

Commission for the Demarca tion of the State Border
line between the People’ Re public of Romania and the
Union of the Soviet Socialist Republics;

(c) the annexes and the additions to the documents with
respect to the demarcation of the Romanian-Soviet State

border line, which may be c oncluded during the period
of validity of this Treaty.”

4.17. Accordingly, the delimitation recorded in the 1949 Procès Verbal (and

confirmed by the 1954 Act) was expressly incorporated by reference.

4.18. A demarcation process was carried out between 1961 and 1962 as envisaged

by the 1961 Border Regime Treaty. The final document (hereafter the “1963

Procès Verbal”), was accompanied by individual procès verbaux describing

the position of each of the defined points, including sketches and enclosed

maps. As for the border sign no. 1439, no modification occurred and no new

Procès Verbal was concluded for this sign.

4.19. However, the general description of the boundary reads, in its relevant parts,

the following:

TPPT Treaty between the Government of the People's Republic of Romania and the Government of

the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics on the Romanian-Soviet State Border Regime, Collaboration
and Mutual Assistance on Border Matters (with Procès Verbal), signed at Bucharest on 27 February
1961 (Annex RM 18 ). The treaty was registered with the S ecretariat of the United Nations on 10
September 2004 by Romania, and was assigned registration no. 40546. “From the border sign no. 1438 (buoy), the State boundary
passes in the Black Sea in a straight line on the azimuth of

102°30’,0, to the border sign no. 1439 (beacon).

The border sign no. 1439 (beacon) is fixed in water, in the
point where the State boundary line going through the Black

Sea changes its direction, at the intersection of the straight line
going from the border sign no. 1438 (buoy) on the azimuth of

102°30,'0 with the exterior margin of the Soviet territorial sea
of 12 miles, around Serpents’ Island.

From the border sign no.1439 (b eacon), the State boundary
passes on the exterior margin of the 12-mile territorial sea of
47
the USSR, leaving Serpents’ Island on the USSR side” TF .PT

4.20. The individual Procès Ve rbal of Border Sign 1438 uses generally the same

language as the one concluded in 1949. The only change of language consists

in provisions concerning the attribu tion of some newly formed Danubian

islets TPPTwhile the 1949 individual Procès Verbal of Border Sign 1439

remained in force, as no factual change occurred since its conclusion.

4.21. The 1963 Procès Verbal was the first time that the “Soviet marine zone” of 12

miles around Serpents’ Island is referred to as a “territorial sea”. But there is

no suggestion in the documents of the period that this change in terminology

produced any change of substance or that it had the effect of an implicit claim

by the Soviet Union to maritime areas to the south of the 12 nm line.

4.22. The next demarcation process was car ried out in the 1970s, on different

sectors of the Romanian-Soviet borde r. The work carried out between 1972

and 1973 covered the southern sector of the common border and resulted in

further Procès Verbaux for each boundary point, as well as a subsequent

Procès Verbal which summarised them all. In the general description, this

Procès Verbal kept the language of the 1963 Procès Verbal, reading that

TPPT Procès Verbal of Description of the State Border Line between the People’s Republic of
Romania and the Union of the Soviet Socialist Republics on Rivers Tur, Tisa, Prut and Danube, drafted
on the Basis of the Verification Effected in 1961-19 62 in Sectors where Modifications as Compared to

the 1948-1949 Demarcation Documents Occurred, signed at Iaşi, on 20 August 1963 (Annex RM 19),
p. 110.
TPPT See the Procès Verbal of Border Sign no. 1438 (buoy), signed at Ia şi, on 20 August 1963
(Annex RM 20).

39 “From the border sign no.1439 (beacon), the State boundary

passes on the exterior margin of the 12-mile territorial sea of
the USSR, leaving Serpents’ Island on the USSR side” FP9.PT

4.23. The individual Procès Verbal rela ting to Point 1439 was concluded on 4

September 1974. As with the individual Pr ocès Verbal relating to Point 1439

from 1949, it referred to the “Soviet marine boundary zone”. It provided:

“This border sign is fixed in water, in the point where the State

boundary line going through the Black Sea changes its
direction, at the intersection of the straight line going from the

border sign no. 1438 (buoy) on the azimuth of 102°30',0 with

the exterior margin of the Soviet marine boundary zone of 12
miles surrounding Serpents’ Island.” FP FPT

It went on to add:

“The boundary line, from the border sign no. 1438 (buoy) goes
through the Black Sea in a straight line, on the azimuth of 102°

30',0 until it reaches the exterior margin of the USSR marine
boundary zone of 12 miles aroun d Serpents' Island, to the

border sign no. 1439 (beacon) and from the border sign no.
1439 (beacon), the boundary passes on the exterior margin of

the USSR marine boundary zone of 12 miles, leaving Serpents’
51
Island on the USSR side.” TPFP(emphasis added).

Again, the phrase “the exterior margin of the USSR marine boundary zone of

12 miles” is the same as in the general and individual Procès Verbaux of 1949.

4.24. A sketch is included, which clearly shows the boundary line running south-

eastwards of Point 1439 as a curved line, i.e. as a sector of a circle with a

radius of 12 miles drawn from Serpents’ Island. The map attributes territory

within the 12 nm circle to the USSR (the indication on the map reads

C.C.C.P./U.R.S.S., in Russian and Romanian), and territory beyond it to

Romania (R.S.R/C.P.P, in Romanian and Russian). The sketch is shown as

Figure 7 (page 42 of this Memorial).

49
TPPT Procès Verbal of Description of the State Border Line between the Socialist Republic of
Romania and the Union of the Soviet Socialist Republics from Border Sign no. 1335 to Border Sign no.
1439, Drafted on the Basis of the Verifications Eff ected in 1972-1973, the Tulcea sector, signed in

50mail, on 4 September 1974 (Annex RM 21), p. 21.
TPPT Procès Verbal of Border Sign no. 1439 (beacon), signed in Ismail, on 4 September 1974
(Annex RM 22).
51
TPPT Ibid.

404.25. The difference between the 1974 individual Procès Verbal’s description of

border sign 1439 and the 1963 and 1974 general Procès Verbaux’s in use of

the phrase “territorial sea of the Soviet Union”, rather than the phrase “Soviet

Union marine boundary zone of 12 miles”, cannot have been intended to mean
that beyond the 12 nm arc there was an unexpressed and undetermined area of

Soviet maritime area, consisting of c ontinental shelf and exclusive economic

zones. This is particularly so as the established term “Soviet Union marine

boundary zone of 12 miles” (“ zonei sovietice de frontier ă marin ă de 12
mile”/”12-мильной морской пограничной полосы”) was used in the specific

Procès Verbaux of the individual si gns, of which the 1963 and 1974 general

Procès Verbaux were but summaries. Further, if the change of language in the
1963 Procès Verbal had been intended to record an eventual change of legal

regime, the 1974 individual Protocol of description would not have continued

to use the language of “marine boundary” ra ther than referring to “territorial

sea”.

4.26. The relevance of the provisions of th e various Procès Verbaux concluded
between Romania and the USSR after 1948 will be further detailed in Chapter

11 of this Memorial.

41 Figure 7

Sketch included in the Procès Verbal of Border
Point no. 1439, signed in Ismail, on 4 September

1974

42(b) Subsequent continental shelf and exclusive economic zone negotiations with the

Soviet Union

4.27. In 1967 Romania and the Soviet Uni on commenced negotiations concerning

the delimitation of the con tinental shelf and the exclusive economic zones of

the two States in the Black Sea. Ten rounds of negotiations were conducted

between 1967 and 1987 (3 rounds of consultations at expert level and 7 rounds

of negotiations at diplomatic level).

4.28. No concrete results could be reached, as the positions of the two countries

diverged on key elements of the delim itation process. Further considerations

on the approach promoted during these negotiations by Romania are presented

in Chapter 5 of this Memorial TPPT

(3) Negotiations with Ukraine following its independence

(a) The 1997 treaties

4.29. Following the independence of Ukraine, new negotiations were held between

Romania and Ukraine relating to a vari ety of questions, including issues

relating to the land border between the tw o States and the delimitation of the

continental shelf and exclusive economic zones between the two States.

4.30. One important product of these negotiati ons was the conclusion of the Treaty

on Relations and the Additional Agr eement in 1997. Despite the highly

questionable manner in which the USSR obtained Serpents’ Island, Romania

nevertheless accepted by these treaties that Serpents’ Island belongs to

Ukraine.

4.31. Article 1(2) of the Treaty on Relations provides:

“The Contracting Parties shall observe, in their mutual relations
as well as in the relations with other states, the principles of the
Charter of the United Nations and of the Helsinki Final Act:

sovereign equality, refraining from the threat or use of force,

52
TPPT See paras. 5.11-5.17 of this Memorial. inviolability of frontiers, territori al integrity of states, peaceful
settlement of disputes …” TPFPT

4.32. Article 2(1) provides:

“The Contracting Parties, in accordance with the principles and

norms of the international law and with the principles of the
Helsinki Final Act, reaffirm that the existing border between

them is inviolable and therefore, they shall refrain, now and in
the future, from any attempt against this border, as well as from

any demand for, or act of, seizur e and usurpation of part or all
the territory of the other Contracting Party.” TPFPT

4.33. It was expressly on this basis that negotiations relating to the 2003 Border

Regime Treaty and the delimitation of the boundaries between the States’

respective continental shelves and exclusive economic zones were foreseen in

Article 2(2) of the Treaty on Relations. This is evident from the Additional

Agreement, which provides in its paragraph 1 that:

“The Government of Ukraine and the Government of Romania
shall conclude, not later than two years from the date of the

entering into force of the Trea ty on the Relations of Good
Neighbourliness and Cooperation between Romania and

Ukraine, a Treaty on the regime of the state border between the
two states, on the basis of the pr inciple of succession of states

regarding borders, according to which the proclamation of the
independence of Ukraine does not affect the existing state-

border between Romania and Ukraine, as it was defined and
described in the Treaty of 1961 on the regime of the Romanian-

Soviet state border and in the appropriate demarcation
documents, valid on 16 July 1990 - the date of the adoption of
55
the Declaration on the state sovereignty of Ukraine.” TPFPT

4.34. Similarly, paragraph 3 expr essly recognises that Serp ents’ Island “belongs to

Ukraine, according to the above-mentioned paragraph 1”.

4.35. But at the same time, in the very same document, in paragraph 4, the Parties

agreed on the principles to be applied in delimiting the maritime boundary.

These principles, and their implications for the present case, will be analysed

TPPT Treaty on the Relations of Good Neighbourliness and Co-Operation between Romania and
Ukraine, signed at Constanţa, on 2 June 1997; 2159 United Nations Treaty Series 335 (Annex RM 1).
54
55PT Ibid.
TPPT Agreement Additional to the Treaty on the Relations of Good Neighbourliness and Co-
Operation between Romania and Ukraine, concluded by exchange of letters between the Ministers of
Foreign Affairs of Romania and Ukraine, done on 2 June 1997; 2159 United Nations Treaty Series 357

(Romanian letter), 363 (Ukrainian counterpart) (Annex RM 2).

44 in detail in later chapters. What must be emphasised here is that the resolution

between the Parties of outstanding territo rial issues coincided with Romanian

insistence on an equitable outcome to the resulting maritime delimitation, in
particular having regard to the provisions of Article 121 of the 1982

UNCLOS.

(b) The 2003 Border Regime Treaty

4.36. The 2003 Border Regime Treaty was concluded by the two States in

accordance with the 1997 Treaty on Relations. Article 1 of the 2003 Border
Regime Treaty expressly adopts the boundary contained in the 1961 Border

Regime Treaty:

“The State border between Romania and Ukraine passes on the
ground as defined and described in the Treaty between the

Government of the People’s Re public of Romania and the
Government of the Union of Soviet Socialists [ sic] Republics
on the Romanian-Soviet State Border Regime, Collaboration
and Mutual Assistance on Border Matters, signed at Bucharest,
th
on the 27 PPof February 1961, as well as in all the corresponding
demarcation documents, the maps of the State border between
the former People’s Republic of Romania and Union of the
Soviet Socialists [ sic] Republics, the protocols of the border

signs with their draft sketches , the corresponding annexes and
their additions, as well as the doc uments of verifications of the
State border line concluded between the former People’s
Republic of Romania/Socialist Republic of Romania and the

fother Union of the Soviet Socialist Republics in force on the
16P of July, 1990 – the date of th e adoption of the Declaration
on the State Sovereignty of Ukraine, as well as in the annexes
and additions to the above mentioned documents which may be

concluded between the Contracting Parties during the period of
validity of this Treaty,

with the exception of the sector of the State border line above-
defined, that passes from the Northern meeting point of the

State borders of Romania, Ukraine and the Republic of
Moldova to the Southern meeting point of the State borders of
those countries,

and continues, from the border sign 1439 (buoy) on the outer
limit of Ukraine’s territorial waters around the Serpents’ Island,
up to the point of 45 °05’21” north latitude and 30 °02’27” east
longitude, which is the meeting point with the Romanian State

border passing on the outer limit of its territorial sea. The
territorial seas of the Contracting Parties measured from the
baselines shall permanently have, at the meeting point of their
outer limits, the width of 12 maritime miles.

45 […]” TPF.T

4.37. At the moment of signing the 2003 Bo rder Regime Treaty, Romania made a

declaration (transmitted to the Ukrainian side by Note verbale no.

C26/3118/17 June 2003 TP), by which expressed its hope that the signature of

the Treaty was to give an impetus to the bilateral negotiations for the

delimitation of the continental shelf and the exclusive economic zones of

Romania and Ukraine in the Black Sea, in order to allow for the conclusion of

the bilateral agreement on the delimitation of these maritime areas in the

shortest delay, and reiterated its position according to which mentioning the

geographical coordinates of the last point of the Romanian-Ukrainian

boundary separating the territorial seas of the two States would not affect this

process of delimitation. This declara tion was confirmed by Romania at the

58
moment of the entry into force of the 2003 Border Regime Treaty. TPFFPT

4.38. The declaration was triggered by Ukrain e’s approach during the negotiations

on the issue of the delimitation of the continental shelf and the exclusive

economic zones of the two States in th e Black Sea, which had been unfolding

in parallel with the negotiations on the 2003 Border Regime Treaty. According

to this approach, the establishment of the final poin t of the boundary between

the territorial seas of the two countri es would have necessarily lead to a

solution for the delimitation of the outer maritime areas in accordance with the

Ukrainian position.

4.39. This point, fixed in the Border Regime Treaty as the “outer limit of Ukraine’s

territorial waters” “which is the meeting point with the Romanian State border

passing on the outer limit of its territorial sea” at 45 °05'21"N and 30°02'27"E,

59
will be referred to by Romania as “Point F” TPFPT

56
TPPT Treaty between Romania and Ukraine on th e Romanian-Ukrainian State Border Regime,
Collaboration and Mutual Assistance on Border Matters, signed at Cern ặuţi, on 17 June 2003 ( Annex
RM 3). The Treaty was registered with the Secretariat of the United Nations on 10 September 2004 by

Romania, and was assigned registration no. 40547
TPPT See Note verbale no. C26/3118 dated 17 June 2003 of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of

58mania to the Embassy of Ukraine in Bucharest (Annex RM 23)
TPPT See Note verbale no. E VI-1/3559 dated 27 May 2004 of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of
Romania to the Embassy of Ukraine in Bucharest (Annex RM 24)
59
TPPT It is worth mentioning that the Treaty provided for the conclusion of new documents on the
position of Point F, if needed in order to preserve the 12-mile breadth of the Romanian territorial sea.

464.40. Point F corresponds to a point on the 12 nm arc drawn around Serpents’ Island

under the September 1949 Procès Verbal , as adopted by the 1961 Border

Regime Treaty, and as described in the individual Procès Verbaux for Point

1439 from 1949 and 1974, and in the 1963 and 1974 Procès Verbaux on the

general description of the Romanian-S oviet border. It lays roughly south-

south-west of Serpents’ Island.

(c) Negotiations in relation to the continental shelf and the exclusive economic
zones

4.41. The Romanian–Ukrainian negotiations on the delimitation of the continental

shelf and exclusive economic zones opened in 1998, in accordance with the

provisions of the Additional Agreement. Before Romania seized this Court

with the present case, there were 24 r ounds of negotiations, as well as 10

rounds at expert level TP.PT

4.42. These negotiations ended into a stalem ate, as the two Parties diverged, inter

alia, on the definition of the relevant co asts, on the method to be applied and

on the interpretation and application of the relevant principles agreed in

paragraph 4 of the Additional Agreement.

4.43. The positions put forward by the two Parties during the negotiation process

were officially explained by both side s in diplomatic correspondence during

the negotiation process.

4.44. Romania favoured an approach based on the principles of the Additional

Agreement, in conformity with State pr actice and international jurisprudence,

mainly the case-law of this Court. Thus, Romania proposed that the

delimitation line be constructe d by provisionally drawing an

60
TPPT These rounds took place as following: 14-16 January 1998 (Kiev), 12-15 October 1998
(Bucharest), 18-22 January 1999 (Kiev), 16-19 March 1999 (Bucharest), 14-16 June 1999 (Kiev), 2-3
December 1999 (Bucharest), 17-19 January 2000 (Kiev), 29-31 March 2000 (Bucharest), 10-11 July
2001 (Kiev), 1-3 October 2001 (Bucharest), 23-24 January 2002 (Kiev), 28 February 2002 (Bucharest),
30-31 May and 11-12 November 2002 (Kiev), 2-3 December 2002 (Bucharest), 21-22 January 2003
(Kiev), 18-19 February 2003 (Bucharest), 9-10 April 2003 (Kiev), 15-16 May 2003 (Bucharest), 13
June 2003 (Kiev), 26-27 September 2003 (Constan ţa), 13 February 2004 (Odessa), 14 April 2004
(Brăila), 10 July 2004 (Yalta) and 8-9 September 2004 (Bucharest). The rounds at expert level were
organized on 11-12 February 2002 (Bucharest), 18-19 February 2002 (Kiev), 5-7 February 2003
(Bucharest), 6-9 May 2003 (Bucharest), 22-23 May 2003 (Kiev), 10-11 July 2003 (Constan ţa), 4-5

September 2003 (Odessa), 23-24 October 2003 (Suceava), 29-3 0 April 2004 (Ia şi) and 6-7 August
2004 (Kiev).

47 equidistant/median line between the rele vant adjacent/opposite coasts of the

two States, followed by an eventual adjust ment of this line as to take account

61
of the relevant/special circumstances of the delimitation area TP. The presence

of Serpents’ Island was identified as a most important such circumstance. The

equitableness of the line was to be te sted by the so-called “proportionality

test”, as done in international case-law.

4.45. By contrast, according to the Ukrainian proposed method, the delimitation line

would have been calculated as an averag e of two previously determined lines.

These were an equidistant/median line between the Romanian mainland coast

and the coasts of Serpents’ Island and then the Crimean Peninsula, and a line

62
determined in accordance with the so-called “method of proportionality” TPFPT

This method was undermined by a logica l contradiction. Thus, in its first

stage, while drawing the equidistant/median line, the Ukrainian side

considered as relevant the coast of Serpents’ Island and a fragment of the coast

of Crimea. By contrast, in its second stage (drawing the “proportionality” line)

Ukraine took into account the whol e coast of the Ukrainian mainland

(including all sectors north to Serpents ’ Island) – despite that, in accordance

with the approach in the first stag e, the Ukrainian mainland coast was

irrelevant for delimitation purposes.

4.46. In this context, it is worth mentioning that Ukraine, while notifying to the

United Nations Secretariat, in accor dance to Article 16 (2) of the 1982

UNCLOS, the geographical coordinates of the points defining the baselines

for measuring the breadth of its territo rial sea, exclusive economic zone and

continental shelf in the Black Sea has, did not include Serpents’ Island among

63
the relevant points. TPFThus, the Ukrainian approach to consider this maritime

feature as relevant for delimiting the continental shelf and the exclusive

economic zone of Ukraine is not opposable to Romania or to any other States.

TPPT See Note verbale no. C23/491 dated 24 January 2002 of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of

62mania to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Ukraine (Annex RM 25).
TPPT See Note verbale no. 72/16-446-119 dated 29 May 2002 of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of
Ukraine to the Embassy of Romania in Kiev (Annex RM 26).
63
TPPT Ukraine. List of the geographical coordinates of the points defining the position of the
baselines for measuring the width of the territorial waters, economic zone and continental shelf of the
Black Sea, Law of the Sea Bulletin no.36/1998, pp. 49-50 ( Annex RM 27). Also available on

www.un.org/Depts/los/LEGISLATIONANDTREATIES/PDFFILES/UKR.htm UTH

484.47. Besides being self-contradictory, the Ukrainian method clearly failed to

comply with the principles set out in the Additional Agreement, binding on

both Parties. Thus, although the Additional Agreement called for an

application of the “principle of e quity and method of proportionality as
applied in State practice and in decisi ons of the international courts”, the

Ukrainian proposal supposed a totally unprecedented role for proportionality,

seen as an independent method of delimitation. Moreover, even if the

Additional Agreement provided for the ap plication of the “a rticle 121 of the
United Nations Conventions on the Law of the Sea … as applied in State

practice and in international case law” the Ukrainian side insisted that

Serpents’ Island should be treated on an equal footing with the opposing
Romanian mainland, despite the fact th at, in accordance with a consistent

body of State practice as well as several decisions of this Court and arbitral

tribunals, this maritime formation, due to its geographical position and natural

characteristics should be ignored for delimitation purposes.

4.48. Furthermore, the resulting Ukrainian claimed-line was not in conformity with
the Procès Verbaux concluded between Romania and the USSR starting in

1949, which clearly provided for the maritime boundary passing on the 12 nm

arc around Serpents’ Island.

4.49. Failure of the Ukrainian side to comply with the provisions of the agreements

in force between Romania and Ukraine led to failure of the bilateral

negotiations.

(4) Conclusions

4.50. The legal implications of these negotiations will be analysed in further detail
in later chapters. What needs to be stressed here are four basic facts:

• first, the maritime zone around Serp ents’ Island was es tablished in 1949,

in terms not limited to a territorial sea;

• second, that boundary was subsequently affirmed on repeated occasions,

without any suggestion that there were further areas appertaining to the
USSR beyond the 12 nm line;

49• third, Romania’s recognition that Serpen ts’ Island belonged to Ukraine in
1997 was bound up with the Additional Agreement and its list of

principles applicable in the delimita tion in order to achieve an equitable

solution;

• fourth, this clear and comprehensive lis t of principles, if applied correctly

during negotiations, with due account give n to international State practice

and jurisprudence, could have lead to a sustainable and equitable solution
for the delimitation issue.

50 CHAPTER 5

THE INFLUENCE OF HISTORY

5.1. It is worth underscoring the fact that neither the 1948 Protocol, nor the procès

verbal of delivery-reception signed on Serpents’ Island on 23 May 1948 was

authorised or ratified by the Romanian Parliament. The two documents by

which Serpents’ Island was incorporated within the territory of the USSR were

not the results of free negotiations between Romania and the Soviet Union and

were contrary to the provisions of the Peace Treaty of Paris of 1947.

5.2. It is also necessary to mention that the incorporation of Serpents’ Island in the

Soviet Union was not the only arbitr ary act taking place in 1948-1949 with

regard to the Romanian territory. T hus, the above mentioned September 1949
Procès Verbal established the river bord er line on the Kilia arm (the northern

arm of the Danube, representing the Ro manian-Soviet border) in such a way

as to allocate to the U SSR several Danubian islets situated on the Romanian

side of the navigable channel, in spite of the general principle established by

the same Procès Verbal that the border was to follow the middle of the main

navigable channel and that the islets were to be allocated accordingly.

5.3. Of particular importance for the course of the maritime boundary was the
2
allocation of the river islet of Limba (with an area of 10 km P), part of the

Romanian territory situated at the mouth of Kilia, to the USSR. As a result, the
river border ceased to follow the navigable channel of Kilia and was shifted to

the south, along a minor channel (the Musura). This affected the position of

the last point of the land/river border and, consequently, the course of the

maritime boundary delimiting the territorial seas of the two States (see Figure

8 – page 52 of this Memorial). Figure 8

The maritime areas in front of the Romanian and Soviet coasts

As it can be seen from the sketch, the inclusion of the islet of Limba in the Soviet
territory dramatically affected the position of the Romanian-Soviet river border, as
well as of the maritime boundary separating the territorial seas of the two States;
furthermore, the boundary separating the territorial seas of Romania and the USSR

is neither equidistant between the Romanian and Soviet adjacent coasts, nor median
between the Romanian and Soviet (Serpents’ Island) opposite coasts5.4. The maritime boundary establishe d by the same September 1949 Procès

Verbal and described in detail by the individual Procès Verbaux of

Border Signs no. 1437 (the last point of the river border), 1438 (buoy)

and 1439 (beacon) is, as well, ine quitable towards Romania: it

corresponds neither to th e line of equidistance between the Romanian

and then-Soviet adjacent coasts, nor to the median line between the

Romanian coast and Serpents’ Island and, moreover, Serpents’ Island is

given more weight than the Romanian mainland coast TPFPTThis is more

striking as there is no special circumstance in that area that could justify

such a solution. As a result of this establishment of the boundary,
2
Romania lost a maritime area of approximately 70 km P. The situation is

also presented in Figure 8 (page 52 of this Memorial).

5.5. The above mentioned situation can be explained only by the historical

circumstances of that period. After 23 August 1944, Romania was

occupied by Soviet troops, which, on 6 March 1945 imposed a

government under the leadership of dr . Petru Groza, made up mostly of

members of the Communist party, which did not represent the Romanian
65
people TPFPTAs Keith Hitchins wrote in his well-known volume Rumania

1866-1947,

“The Government headed by Petru Groza was a minority
government. Imposed by the Soviet Union, it did not

represent the will of the majority of Rumanians, who were
anti-Russian and anti-Communist” TPF.PT

5.6. The elections organised by the Groza government on 19 November 1946

were fraudulent and the result ing government was not a genuine

reflection of the will of the people. As Hitchins observed,

“Various independent sources suggest that the National
Peasants [the main anti-Communi st party] were on their way

to a landslide victory with about 70 per cent of the vote, an
expression of faith in the most democratic of all Rumanian

political parties and, no less, a manifestation of strong

64
TPPT The equidistance line would have followed a more northern tract; the Soviet marine
area of Serpents’ Island has a breadth of 12 mi les, while in that zone the Romanian area was
limited to about 9 miles, according to the factual situation of 1949 (8 miles in present).
65
66PT See Keith Hitchins, Rumania 1866-1947, Clarendon Press Oxford, 1994, pp. 514-515.
TPPT Ibid., p. 516. national feeling. It appears th at when Communist leaders

realized the extent of their impending defeat they had the
reporting of returns suspended […] and sent instructions to all
prefects to ‘revise’ the figures in order to show a victory for

the Bloc [the Communist-dominated alliance]. Ana Pauker
and other Communists appear to have consulted Moscow and
to have received the go-ahead to falsify the election results” TP.PT

5.7. Likewise, the proclamation of the “People’s Republic” on 30 December

1947 is also generally considered toda y as an act of a minority. In his

book Romania under Communist Rule, Dennis Deletant writes:

“In Romania the Communist Party took the initiatives

designed to reduce Romania to subservience to the Soviet
Union. It did so through the political system, the trade unions,

and the educational system.[…]The final action was the
forced abdication of King Mich ael, under the threat of civil
war, on 30 December 1947.The same day, the Romanian

People’s republic was declared. It did not stem from a popular
will, freely expressed, but from dictates of a political group
who were the puppets of a foreign master. Even the legality of
68
the law establishing the Republic was suspect […]” PFFP

5.8. Hence, the events connected to the Romanian-Soviet “understandings” of

1948 and 1949 did not take place between equal partners, but between an

occupied State and the occupying pow er. It is to mention that the

Romanian delegation had had a simila r behaviour with the occasion of

the negotiations of the 1947 Paris Peace Treaty:

“[…] the Rumanian delegation di d not contest any issues of
vital concern to the Soviet Un ion. For example, although the

pre-1940 frontier between Rumania and Hungary was
restored on the grounds that it had been altered under threat of
force, Tătărescu [the head of the Romanian delegation at the

peace negotiations in Paris] and company did not object to the
Soviet annexation of Bessara bia and northern Bukovina. Nor
did they bring up the Treaty of Craiova of 1940 with its loss

of southern Dobrudja to Bulgar ia, now a close Soviet ally.
Romanian diplomats who had ta ken refuge in the West […]
tried to represent the national interests of Greater Rumania

and repeatedly showed Western diplomats how the behaviour
of the official delegation was dictated by the Soviet Union

TPPT Hitchins, Rumania 1866-1947, Clarendon Press Oxford, 1994, p. 533. For the general
context of the organization of the elections, see p. 529-533.
TPPT Dennis Deletant, Romania under Communist Rule, The Center for Romanian Studies,

Iaşi-Oxford-Portland, 1999, p. 56-57

54 69
[…].” TPFPT

5.9. This factual status was maintained to a certain extent, even after the

withdrawal of the Soviet troops in July 1958. In this respect, Deletant notes

that

“On 25 July 1958, the last of the 35, 000 Soviet troops

left Romania. The most signi ficant impact of the Soviet
withdrawal upon Romanian leadership was psychological.

Romania was still tied firmly within the Soviet bloc.
Soviet air and naval base s remained on Romanian
territory, and Soviet divisions in southern Ukraine and

across the Prut in the Moldavian Republic could descend
at once in an emergency”. TPFPT

5.10. In conclusion, the process of the in corporation of Serpents’ Island in the

Soviet Union, as well as the 1949 establishment of the maritime

boundary between border signs 1437, 1438, 1439 and beyond did not

reflect the free will of the Romanian State.

5.11. The arbitrariness of this situat ion was underscored by Romania during

the 20 years of negotiations betw een Romania and the USSR on the

delimitation of the maritime spaces in the Black Sea. It was emphasised

that the unfair way in which Serpents ’ Island was transferred, as well as

the unfair allocation to it of a mar itime area with a breadth of 12 miles

(while the breadth of the Romanian territorial sea facing Serpents’ Island

was reduced) should not produce more negative effects than those which

Romania had been compelled to ac cept in 1948 and 1949. At the same

time, Romania always accepted that the provisions of the 1949 Procès

Verbal and its subsequent Romanian-Soviet understandings established –

albeit in an inequitable manner – the maritime boundary in the area

surrounding Serpents’ Island.

5.12. For instance, with the occasion of the Romanian-Soviet bilateral talks on

2-4 February 1976, the Ro manian negotiators re ferred to the Soviet-

advocated delimitation solution as

69
TPPT See Keith Hitchins, Rumania 1866-1947, Clarendon Press Oxford, 1994, p. 534.
TPPT See Dennis Deletant, Romania under Communist Rule, The Center for Romanian
Studies, Iaşi-Oxford-Portland, 1999, pp 96-97

55 “[being] based on a factual s ituation established in 1948,

the delimitation of the territo rial sea of 1948, which was
made in Romania’s disadvantage, based on unknown
criteria.” TPFPT

They went on to state that

“in 1949 Serpents’ Island left Ro mania’s territory against the
[provisions of] the peace trea ty […] which established the

border between the two States. We do not contest the 1947
[peace] treaty, but we cannot agree with the abnormal
situation created in this sector […] Nobody can use a

situation, nobody can prevail of it against another State. This
is the situation from 1948: we do not want this situation to

perpetrate its negativ72effects on the delimitation of the
continental shelf”. TPFPT

5.13. On 17 November 1978, the head of the Romanian delegation conveyed to

his Soviet counterpart the following:

“We have listened carefully to the declaration of the Soviet
delegation and I would like to make clear that the Romanian

delegation does not raise the issue of the maritime boundary
between [the territorial seas of] our countries. We have
underlined, though, the historical facts that cannot be ignored

by either party and that must be taken into account in the
delimitation.
In its statement of 15 November, the Romanian delegation

stated, among others, the following:
‘Serpents’ Island cannot produce any unfavourable effects for
Romania not only because it is a special circumstance in

itself, but also because of the way it was detached from the
territory of Romania in 1948 contrary to the provisions of the
Peace Treaty of Paris of 1947, a situation that can by no

means be ignored by the Soviet party’.
This statement is based on the following elements:
1. The Peace Treaty of 15 September 1947 provides in

art.1: ‘The frontiers of Roma nia, shown on the map annexed
to the present Treaty (Annex I) shall be those which existed
on January 1 1941’. Thus, the provision in the Treaty

confirms an undisputable legal situation, id est that Serpents’
Island was an integral part of the territory of Romania. The
map attached to the Peace Treaty also reflects this situation.

2. The protocol of 4 Februa ry 1948, titled “Protocol to
Specify the Line of the Stat e Boundary between the People’s

Republic of Romania and the Union of Soviet Socialist
Republics” concerned only the materialization of the trace of

71
72PT Extract from the minutes of the 1976 Romanian-Soviet negotiations (Annex RM 28).
TPPT Ibid.

56 the border line established by the Peace Treaty. In the
Protocol it is stipulated in the first paragraph that this

materialization of the state bor der is done in accordance with
art.1 of the 1947 Peace Treaty. Th e obligation of the Parties
was, accordingly, to fix the trace of the border between the
two States as it was at 1 Ja nuary 1941. Nevertheless, despite

the provisions of the Peace Tr eaty, in this Protocol, the
purpose of which was only to define the trace of the state
border of Romania existing at 1 January 1941, it is provided
that Serpents’ Island is incorporated into the USSR. So, by a

Protocol having the said purpos e, this island was detached
from the territory of Romania, contrary to the provisions of
the Peace Treaty.

This is the meaning of th e contradiction to which we
referred in our intervention of 15 November.
We want to remind, also, that even in 1948, when this
island was detached from the Romanian territory, there

existed a treaty of friendship that stipulated clearly the
inviolability of borders, similarly to the 1970 Treaty.
Nonetheless, the border was modified by detaching the island

from the Romanian territory.
In conclusion, we have made this statement, as during other
rounds of our negotiations, going from the necessity that
political and legal circumstances linked to Serpents’ Island,

constituting in itself special circumstances, shall be taken into
consideration in order to achie ve a truly equitable agreement
in respect to the delimitation of the continental shelf in the
Black Sea between our countries.” TPFPT

5.14. Further, on 15 May 1980, the head of the Romanian delegation said that:

“In relation to Serpents’ Isla nd, the Romanian delegation has

expressed its position, and not only once. Once more, we
underline that we cannot agree with your opinion, that the
delimitation of the continental shelf should start from the
point of confluence of the territorial seas of Romania with the

ones established for Serpents’ Island […] By no means can
the territorial waters establishe d by the Soviet party for this
minuscule island constitute a starting point for the

delimitation. […].
We see that Serpents’ Island is considered by the Soviet
delegation the decisive fact or in the delimitation of
continental shelf between our countries. We want to underline

that the island cannot produce any effects, unfavourable for
Romania, not only because it is a special circumstance in
itself, but also because of the way it was detached from the

territory of Romania in 1948 contrary to the provisions of the
Peace Treaty of Paris of 1947, a situation that can by no
means be ignored by the Soviet party.” TPFPT

5.15. Again, with the occasion of the last round of the Romanian-Soviet

TPPT Extract from the minutes of the 1978 Romanian-Soviet negotiations (Annex RM 29).

57 negotiations (1-2 October 1987), the Ro manian head of delegation said

that

“By establishing, in 1948, an ar ea of water boundary of 12

miles around this island [Serpents’ Island], the maritime area
which Romania could have s outh to Serpents’ Island was
diminished [...]. In these conditions this island was not ignored,

as it was already allocated its own maritime area, which
represents an important effect […], an effect which must not be
75
exaggerated, given its characteristics.” TPFPT

DescR ribhingnian-proposed delimitation line, the Romanian

negotiator added that

“As already shown, we think th at, according to its features,
Serpents’ Island cannot have its [continental] shelf and
[exclusive economic] zone. But we do not ignore it. […] The

delimitation proposal respects th e bilateral Romanian-Soviet
understandings regarding Serpents ’ Island. It will continue to

have maritime boundary waters of 12 mil76, together with their
accompanying soil and subsoil.” TPFPT

In conclusion, the Romanian delegation pointed out that

“Regarding Serpents’ Island, without mentioning the
conditions in which, by the 1948 Procès Verbal, the question of

this island was dealt with and no twithstanding the fact that it
has very reduced dimensions, we do not ignore it as far as the
maritime spaces are concerned. We did not ignore it when the

27 September 1949 Procès Ve rbal was concluded and
established that ‘from the border sign 1439 (beacon), the

boundary passes on the exterior margin of the Soviet marine
boundary zone of 12 miles, leav ing Serpents’ Island on the
USSR side’. As at the date of the conclusion of this Procès

Verbal the breadth of the Romani an territorial seas was of 6
miles, the agreed delimitation line on that sector separated both
territorial waters of the two States and areas that, in the absence

of any agreement, would have be longed to the high seas. That
is why we are right to consid er that, in 1949, our governments

established a sui generis delimitation line, which confirmed the
pass-over of Serpents’ Island to the USSR and allocated to it,
in part explicitly and in part implicitly, a semicircular maritime

space, with a radius of 12 mile s, whose exterior limit on the
segment separating Romanian waters from Soviet waters
received the characteristics of a State boundary. What was

TPPT Extract from the minutes of the 1980 Romanian-Soviet negotiations (Annex RM 30).
TPPT Extract from the minutes of the 1987 Romanian-Soviet negotiations (Annex RM 31).
TPPT Extract from the minutes of the 1987 Romanian-Soviet negotiations (Annex RM 31).

58 agreed then is the maximum effect that can be given to this
island. We cannot go any further beyond.” TPFPT

5.16. As clearly seen, Romania did not the n, in bilateral talks with the USSR

or subsequently in its discussions with Ukraine, seek to reverse the

coerced transfer of 1948 or the unju st provisions of the 1949 Procès

Verbal. Romania put more value on the need for order and stability of the

international community than on its ow n historical frustrations. Thus, by

the provisions of the already me ntioned bilateral Romanian-Soviet

documents concluded in 1961, 1963, 1974, as well as of the Romanian-

Ukrainian agreements concluded in 1997, it recognised Serpents’ Island

and its 12 mile zone as belonging to the USSR and later Ukraine, as a
State successor of the former Soviet Union.

5.17. Romania, did, however, always insist that the flawed transaction of 1948

should not be prolonged and extende d in space, beyond the actual

language of the 1949 delimitation ag reements, to the manifest

disadvantage of Romania.

5.18. This was also the basis for Romania’s insistence in 1997 — when for the

first time it formally accepted that Serpents’ Island belonged to Ukraine

— that principles of maritime de limitation be adopted which would not

cause it such further prejudice, in pa rticular by treating Serpents’ Island

as a rock for the purposes of Article 121 of the 1982 UNCLOS. The

history of the matter explains the vital link between Romania’s

acceptance of the territorial status quo and the principles of delimitation

specified in the Additional Agreement of 1997.

5.19. Likewise before this Court Romania does not ask for the reversal of prior

transactions, whatever their merits or auspices. But it does say that the

arbitrary acts perpetrated in the 1948 and 1949 – the illegal take-over of

Serpents’ Island by the Soviet Union, as well as the unjust allocation of

maritime areas to it larger than th e maritime areas of Romania and not

justified by the very characteristics of this maritime feature - can in no

way constitute a basis for further injustice. Hence, the territorial rights of

TPPT Extract from the minutes of the 1987 Romanian-Soviet negotiations (Annex RM 31).

59Romania cannot be affected more than they have already been, while an
equitable solution should take into account any historical or political

prejudice previously inflicted.

60 CHAPTER 6

EXISTING DELIMITATIONS IN THE BLACK SEA

(1) Introduction

6.1 The general context of the maritime delimitations already established in the

Black Sea should be seen together w ith its geographical character as an

enclosed sea. As further explained in this Chapter, the Romanian-Ukrainian
maritime delimitation cannot ignore the delimitation practice existing in the

Black Sea, as well as the solutions identified by this practice.

6.2 In addition to Romania and Ukraine, both Turkey and Bulgaria have continental

shelf and exclusive economic zone entitl ements in the western basin of the

Black Sea. Considering th e geographical configurati on of the area, there are
five delimitation situations between the riparian States in this western basin.

6.3 A number of these delimitations have already been settled by agreement. There

are single maritime boundaries for both the continental shelf and the exclusive

economic zones between Turkey and Ukraine and between Turkey and

Bulgaria.

6.4 The boundaries between Romania and Bulg aria and Romania and Turkey have
yet to be agreed.

6.5 A presentation of the existing delimitations in the western basin of the Black
Sea is shown in Figure 9 (page 62 of this Memorial). Figure 9

Maritime delimitations in the western basin of

the Black Sea (2) Delimitation Agreements with and between third States

(a) Turkey/USSR (Ukraine, Georgia, Russian Federation)

6.6 Turkey and the USSR concluded the Agreement concerning the delimitation of

the continental shelf between the Republic of Turkey and the Union of Soviet

Socialist Republics in the Black Sea H(hereafter the “Turke y/USSR Continental

Shelf Agreement”) at Moscow on 23 June 1978. TPFFUkraine and Georgia are

successors to this Agreement, and to the boundary it creates, by way of

succession following the break-up of the former USSR. The Russian

Federation, continuing the personality of the former USSR, is likewise bound

by the Agreement as concerns its remaining territory.

6.7 Article 1 of the Turkey/USSR Contin ental Shelf Agreement delimits the

continental shelf between the former U SSR and Turkey running from the outer

limit of the territorial sea between what is now Georgia and Turkey, TPFPT

diagonally north-west across the central section of th e Black Sea south of the

Crimean peninsula up to a point situated to the south-west of Sevastopol in the

Crimea (43°20'43"N, 32°00'00"E).

6.8 Article 1, having set out the coordinates of the turning points of the agreed line,

continues:

“The Contracting Parties agree that with the conclusion of this

Agreement the line delimiting the continental shelf between the
Republic of Turkey and the Uni on of Soviet Socialist Republics

has been defined as far as the point with co-ordinates 43 °20'43"
north latitude and 32°00'00" eas t longitude The Parties have

agreed that the question of extending the line delimiting the
continental shelf further to the West between the points with co-

ordinates 43°20'43"N north latitude and 32°00'00" east longitude

TPPT Agreement between the Government of the Republic of Turkey and the Government of the
Union of Soviet Socialist Republics concerning the delimitation of the continental shelf between the

Republic of Turkey and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics in the Black Sea , Moscow, 23 June
1978; 1247 United Nations Treaty Series 141 (in force 15 May 1981).
TPPT For delimitation of the territorial sea, see the Protocol between the Government of the Republic
of Turkey and the government of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics concerning the establishment

of the maritime boundary between Turkish and Soviet territorial waters in the Black Sea, Ankara, 17
April 1973; 990 United Nations Treaty Series 201 (in force 27 March 1975). and the co-ordinates 43°26'59" north latitude and 31°20'48" east
longitude, shall be settled later, in the course of subsequent

negotiations, to be held at a convenient time.”

6.9 The Agreement therefore envisaged that, in principle, the end-point of the

delimitation between the USSR and Turk ey would be at or about the point

43°26'59"N and 31°20'48"E. Romania will refe r to this point as "Point L". The

situation can be seen on Figure 9 (page 62 of this Memorial).

6.10 This point corresponds almost exactly to the equidistance tri-point between the

Soviet Union (to which Ukraine is th e successor), Turkey and Romania.

Accordingly, it is clear that the Soviet Union (a nd Turkey) envisaged in 1978

that Romania can validly assert a claim to maritime zones out to at least this

point, and that, in the absence of a de limitation between the Soviet Union and

Romania, agreement of the boundary a ny further west would be likely to

impinge on areas claimed by Romania.

6.11 The delimitation boundary established in the Agreement is based on simplified

80
equidistance TP. It is worth mentioning that, unlike the boundary delimiting the

continental shelf between the two c ountries, the boundary separating their

territorial sea had been pr eviously established as a non-equidistant line, on the
81
prolongation of the last course of the land boundary TP.PT

6.12 Following the proclamation of an excl usive economic zone by Turkey on 17

December 1986, Turkey and the USSR agreed by an exchange of notes dated 23

December 1986 and 6 February 1987 (hereafter “Turkey/USSR EEZ

Agreement”), that the continental sh elf boundary agreed in the Turkey/USSR

Continental Shelf Agreement would also constitute the boundary between their

exclusive economic zones.

TPPT See International Maritime Boundaries, vol II, edited by Jonathan I. Charney and Lewis M.
Alexander, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 1996, p. 1695.
TPPT Ibid., p. 1683.

64 (b) TTurkey/Bulgaria T

6.13 On 4 December 1997, Turkey and Bulg aria concluded an Agreement on

determination of the boundary in the mouth area of the Rezovska/Mutludere

river and delimitation of the maritime areas between the two States in the Black

82
Sea. TPFPThe Turkey/Bulgaria Delimitation Treaty delimited the territorial sea

(Article 3), and continental shelf and ex clusive economic zones (Article 4) of

the two States in the south-western por tion of the western basin of the Black

Sea.

6.14 The maritime boundary thereby drawn between Turkey and Bulgaria runs, with

minor variations, roughly east-north-east from the outer limit of the boundary

between the territorial seas of the two States “through geodetic lines joining the

turning points” defined in Article 4(1) . The two final points described by the

Agreement are Point 9, located at 43 °19'54"N, 31 °06'33"E, and Point 10,

located at 43 °26'49"N, 31°20'43"E. However, Article 4, paragraph 1 of the

Agreement continues:

“As for the drawing of the delimitation line of the continental
shelf and the Exclusive Economic Zone further to the North-East
direction between geographic point 43°19'54" N and 31°06'33" E

and geographic point 43°26'49" N and 31 °20'43" E, the Parties
have agreed that such a drawing will be finalized later at

subsequent negotiations which will be held at a suitable time.”

Turkey and Bulgaria accordingly reserv ed the possibility of further variation

between Point 9 and Point 10.

6.15 Point 9 corresponds to the equidistance tr i-point between Bulgaria, Turkey and

Romania. Accordingly, it is clear that, si milarly to the previous approach of the

Soviet Union and Turkey, Bulgaria a nd Turkey envisaged that Romania can

validly assert a claim beyond Point 9.

TPPT Agreement between the Republic of Turkey and the Republic of Bulgaria on determination of

the boundary in the mouth area of the Rezovska/Mutludere river and delimitation of the maritime areas
between the two States in the Black Sea , Sofia, 4 December 1997 (in force 4 November 1998); 2087
United Nations Treaty Series . The agreement was registered with the United Nations Secretariat on 1
November 1999 by Bulgaria, and was assigned registration no. 36204.

656.16 Point 10 of the Turkey/Bulgaria Delimitation Treaty, located at 43 °26'49"N,

31°20'43"E, and the final point defined in the Turkey/USSR Continental Shelf

Agreement (Point L) located at 43 °26'59"N and 31°20'48"E (which also serves

as the final point defined in relation to the exclusive economic zone boundary

under the Turkey/USSR EEZ Agreement) ar e virtually identical, varying only

by 10 seconds latitude north and 5 seconds longitude east. This difference may

be accounted for by the different projections used in calculating these points.

6.17 As already presented above, this point is the equidistance tri-point between

Ukraine, Turkey and Romania, while Point 9 from the Bulgaria/Turkey

agreements coincides with the equidistance tri-point between Bulgaria,

Romania and Ukraine.

6.18 The graphic representation of the Bulgarian-Turkish delimitation can be seen on

Figure 9 (page 62 of this Memorial).

6.19 As already explained, the 1997 Agreemen t established the maritime boundary

delimiting the Bulgarian and Turkish territorial seas, exclusive economic zones

and continental shelf. Due to historical circumstances, the boundary separating

the territorial seas of the two States was established on the geographical parallel

passing through the terminal land border poi nt; thus, it does not comply with

equidistance, even though, taking into account the characteristics of the

delimitation area (the coastlines of the two States are relati vely even and there

are no islands or islets and no major protrusions on either coastline), an

equidistance line could be presumed to produce equitable results. However, the

situation is different regarding the continental shelf and the exclusive economic

zones: the boundary separating these maritime areas is based on a simplified
83
equidistant line, considered by the parties as just and equitable TP.PT

TPPT See International Maritime Boundaries, vol IV, edited by Jonathan I. Charney and Robert W.
Smith, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2002, p. 2874.

666.20 As, by agreeing to a maritime boundary separating the territorial seas non-

complying with the equidistance principl e, Turkey seems to have suffered a

territorial loss, it appears that this was compensated by the establishment of the

first segment of the boundary delimiting the continental shelf and the exclusive

economic zones - in the area lying between the co-ordinates of 42 °14'28''N,

29°20'45''E; 42°26'24''N, 29°34'20''E and 42 °29'24''N, 29°49'36''E, where the

delimitation boundary deviates to the nor th of the equidistant line, thus

allocating to Turkey maritime areas to compensate for the “loss” connected to

the delimitation of the territorial seas TPF. This situation is depicted in Figure 10

(page 68 of this Memorial).

84
TPPT See International Maritime Boundaries, vol IV, edited by Jonathan I. Charney and Robert W.
Smith, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2002, p. 2875.

67 Figure 10

The Bulgarian-Turkish maritime boundary
The area of territorial sea lost by Turkey was compensated by an area of EEZ

and continental shelf situated north to the equidistance line (3) Relevance of other delimitations to the Court’s task

6.21 In accordance with Article 59 of the Statut e of the Court, the judgments of the

Court are only binding on the parties, and only in respect of that particular case.

There can be no question of prejudging th e eventual delimitation of boundaries

of either Ukraine or Romania with the other riparian States , or of the other

States inter se. As the Court noted in the Qatar/Bahrain case and again in

Cameroon/Nigeria, all it can do in such situat ions is to effect a bilateral

delimitation between the two Parties befo re it, running in a certain direction
85
towards but stopping short of the tri-point. TPFFPT

6.22 But the Court is entitled to be informed of the maritime boundary agreements or

claims of third parties; the solutions established by the existing delimitation

agreements, together with the geographical characteristics of the area in which

these delimitations were concluded deserve being analysed in detail.

2
6.23 The Black Sea is a co ntinental sea, having an area of 462,535 km PP(including

the small Azov Sea, situated in its norther n part). Its only link with other seas -

the Mediterranean Sea and, through it, th e planetary ocean – is represented by

the straits of Bosphorus a nd Çanakkale and the Sea of Marmara, situated in its

South-Western part. Thus, the Black Sea is , in the terms of Article 122 of the

1982 UNCLOS, an “enclosed sea”.

6.24 As clearly presented, all the delimitation agreements concluded in the Black Sea

used equidistance as the method for the delimitation of the continental shelf and

the exclusive economic zones. Thus, the Bulgarian-Turkish delimitation line is

equidistant to the Bulgarian and Turkish adjacent coasts, while the

Soviet/Ukrainian-Turkish delimitation line is median between the respective

relevant coasts. No major consideration was given to other factors related to the

TPPT Maritime Delimitation and Territorial Questi ons Between Qatar and Bahrain (Qatar v.
Bahrain), Judgment, ICJ Reports 2001 , p. 116 (para. 250); Land and Maritime Boundary between
Cameroon and Nigeria (Cameroon v. Nigeria; Equatorial Guinea intervening) , ICJ Reports 2002,
judgment of 10 October 2002, para. 307. The same approach was taken by the Arbitration Tribunal in relevant coasts of the parties (such as their geographical configuration or

eventual disproportion between them) wh en the delimitation lines were drawn.

Moreover, equidistance was chosen as the solution for the maritime boundary

delimiting the exclusive economic zones and the continental shelf of the

respective countries irresp ective of the fact that the boundary delimiting their

territorial seas was not the equidistance line.

6.25 Due to the nature of the Black Sea as an enclosed sea and to its limited area –

and the even more limited area of its western part, where the Romanian-

Ukrainian delimitation occurs – there is a clear need for consistency among all

cases of delimitation in the Black Sea. Thus, using equidistance in all concluded

agreements (which was considered equita ble by all parties in volved) leads to a

situation in which using different met hods in the other de limitation processes

would tend to bring about inequitable results.

6.26 The analysis of international case-law l eads to the conclusion that, in cases of

enclosed seas, the actual or prospective delimitation agreements in the relevant

area constitute a relevant circumstance for delimitation purposes.

6.27 Thus, in the North Sea Continental Shelf cases, the Court found that one of the

relevant circumstances in the area of delimitation is

“the element of reasonable de gree of proportionality, which

delimitation carried out in accordance with equitable principles
ought to bring about between the ex tent of the continental shelf

areas appertaining to the coasta l States and the length of the
relevant part of its coast”, underlining that in the evaluation of
this circumstance due account is to be taken of the “effects,

actual and prospective, of any other continental shelf delimitation
between States in the same region”. TPFPT

6.28 A similar statement was made by the Court in the Tunisia/Libya case. TPFPT

Eritrea-Yemen (Second Stage: Maritime Delimitation), Award of 17 December 1999, International Legal
Materials, vol. 40, p. 1006 (para. 136).
TPPT North Sea Continental Shelf Cases, Judgment, ICJ Reports 1969, p. 4 54 (para. 101 D (3)).
TPPT Continental Shelf (Tunisia/Libyan Arab Jamahiriya), Judgment, ICJ Reports 1982 , p. 93 (para.
133 B (5)).

706.29 In the Case of the delimitation of the maritime boundary between Guinea and

Guinea-Bissau, the Arbitral Tribunal stated that

“[a] delimitation designed to obt ain an equitable result cannot

ignore the other delimitations already made or still to be made in
the region” TF8PT

6.30 The factual geographical situation of the Black Sea, as well as the homogenous

practice regarding delimitations of maritime areas, makes a similar treatment

essential.

6.31 For instance, in the wester n part of the Black Sea, the Bulgarian-Turkish and

Ukrainian-Turkish delimitations of the continental shelf and the exclusive

economic zones were realised on the basi s of equidistance between the relevant

adjacent/opposite coasts. The equidistant/median line was generally not

corrected to reflect other factors (such as an eventual disproportion between the
89
lengths of the relevant coasts) TPF– a solution which seems to have disadvantaged

Turkey, which has a coast longer than both the Ukrainian and Bulgarian

relevant coasts.

6.32 Using different approaches in the Roma nian-Ukrainian process of delimitation

would lead to an inequitable result in favour of one party, which could benefit

from a correction of the delimitation line in its advantage and, on the other

hand, would benefit from no correction havi ng been done in its disadvantage in

relation with a third State. To avoid such a situation, the equ itable approach is

to apply the method of equidistance in the case of delimitation between

Romania and Ukraine too – as it is also set forth in paragraph 4 b) of the

Additional Agreement.

6.33 Moreover, one cannot but notice the similarity between the situation in the cases

of delimitation of Romania and Ukraine, on the one hand, and the delimitation

88
89PT ILR vol. 77, p. 677 (para.93); also RIIA, vol. XIX, part IV (1985), p. 183 (para. 93)
TPPT In the case of the Turkey/Bulgaria Delimi tation Treaty the boundar y between the EEZ and
continental shelf of the two States was corrected so as to compensate for the position of the boundary in
the territorial sea - see para.6.20 of this Memorial.

71 effected between Bulgaria and Turkey, on the other hand. The ratio of

proportionality between the relevant coast of Romania and Ukraine and

respectively Bulgaria and Turkey is roughly the same, and the geographical

relationship between these relevant coasts is also similar. The situation in the

southern part of the western basin of the Black Sea resembles the situation in its

northern part, except for the presence of Serpents’ Island. For considerations of

logic and equity, the same method – i.e., equidistance – should be applied in the

case of delimitation between Romania a nd Ukraine, subject always to the

special situation of Serpents’ Isla nd, already substantially covered by
90
agreement, as has been shown TPPT

6.34 Considering the elements mentioned above , the general situation of the Black

Sea – from the point of view of its geographical characteristics which give it the

characteristic of an enclosed sea – s een in conjunction with the delimitation

solutions consecrated in the delimitation agreements already concluded leads to

a situation in which an eventual drama tic change of the method used for the

delimitation of the economic areas of Romania and Ukraine, as against the

method used in all other delimitations comp leted in the Black S ea, will lead to

inequitable results. Thus, it seems certain that, in view of the already established

practice of delimitation in the Black S ea, which is a geographically limited,

enclosed sea, the only method of delimita tion prone to bring about equitable

results is equidistance – the same method used in the other agreements already

in force – certainly, qualified by any pre-existing agreements or relevant

circumstances.

90
TPPT The situation of the maritime boundaries separating the territorial seas of Romania and Ukraine,
on the one hand, and Bulgaria and Turkey, on the other hand, is also similar: in both cases these
boundaries were established by agreement and depart from equidistance.

72 PARTII

THE APPLICABLELAW ASA GREEDBY THE

PARTIES

73 CHAPTER 7

APPLICABLE BILATERAL TREATIES

(1) Paramountcy of agreement in maritime delimitation

7.1 Romania and Ukraine are now parties to the 1982 UNCLOS. Romania deposited

its instrument of ratification on 17 December 1996 and Ukraine did so on 26 July

1999. The Convention entered into force as between them on 25 August 1999, in
91
accordance with Article 308(2) of the 1982 UNCLOS. TPFPT

7.2 Articles 74 and 83 of the 1982 UNCLOS deal with delimitation of the exclusive

economic zone and continental shelf, respectively. Article 74 provides:

“Delimitation of the exclusive economic zone
between States with opposite or adjacent coasts

1. The delimitation of the exclusive economic zone 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.

2. If no agreement can be re ached within a reasonable
period of time, the States concerned shall resort to the procedures
provided for in Part XV.

3. Pending agreement as provided for in paragraph 1, the
States concerned, in a spirit of understanding and cooperation,
shall make every effort to enter into provisional arrangements of

a practical nature a nd, during this transi tional period, not to
jeopardize or hamper the reaching of the final agreement. Such
arrangements shall be without prejudice to the final delimitation.

4. Where there is an agreement in force between the States
concerned, questions relating to the delimitation of the exclusive
economic zone shall be determ ined in accordance with the

provisions of that agreement.”

91
TPPT Both States were previously parties to the Convention on the Continental Shelf, Geneva, 29
April 1958 (in force 10 June 1964), 499 United Nations Treaty Series 312. Ukraine ratified the
Convention on 12 January 1961; Romania acceded to it on 12 December 1961. Similarly, Article 83 provides:

“Delimitation of the continental shelf between
States with opposite or adjacent coasts

1. The delimitation of the 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.

2. If no agreement can be re ached within a reasonable
period of time, the States concerned shall resort to the procedures

provided for in Part XV.

3. Pending agreement as provided for in paragraph 1, the

States concerned, in a spirit of understanding and cooperation,
shall make every effort to enter into provisional arrangements of
a practical nature a nd, during this transi tional period, not to

jeopardize or hamper the reaching of the final agreement. Such
arrangements shall be without prejudice to the final delimitation.

4. Where there is an agreement in force between the States
concerned, questions relating to the delimitation of the

continental shelf shall be dete rmined in accordance with the
provisions of that agreement.”

7.3. As recognised in Articles 74 and 83, in maritime delimitation the fundamental

norm is that the parties shall effect the delimitation “by agreement on the basis of

international law… in order to achieve an equitable solution”. This is equally the

position under general (customary) interna tional law, as recognized by the Court

in the North Sea Continental Shelf cases and on many subsequent occasions. In

the North Sea Continental Shelf cases, PFFthe Court observed that, starting with the

Truman Proclamation “the two concepts, of delimitation by mutual agreement

and delimitation in accordan ce with equitable principl es, have underlain all the
93
subsequent history of the subject” PF FPLater the Court observed that there existed

certain basic legal notions reflecting

92
TPPT North Sea Continental Shelf (Federal Republic of Germany/Denmark; Federal Republic of
Germany/Netherlands),Judgment, ICJ Reports 1969, p. 4.
TPPT Ibid., pp. 35-36 (para. 55).

75 “the opinio juris in the matter of delimitation; those principles
being that delimitation must be the object of agreement between

the States concerned, and that such agreement must94e arrived at
in accordance with equitable principles.” TPFPT

As a consequence, the Cour t ruled that, as a matter of customary international

law:

“delimitation is to be effected by agreement in accordance with
equitable principles, and taki ng account of all the relevant
95
circumstances…”. TPFPT

7.4. For the purposes of Articles 76(4) and 83(4), evidently it does not matter

whether the agreement in question was concluded before or after the entry into

force of the 1982 UNCLOS for the States concerned. Whenever it may have

been concluded, an agreement in for ce relating to the delimitation of the

exclusive economic zones and/or contin ental shelf remains binding, and the

delimitation “shall be determined in ac cordance with the pr ovisions of that

agreement.” Moreover this language cl early applies to partial as well as

complete delimitations. For example a treaty which partly delimits maritime

zones is binding even though the parties ma y have still to comp lete the task of

delimiting their outer maritime areas.

7.5. Articles 74(4) and 83(4) of the 1982 UNCLOS are formulated in broad terms.

They cover not only agreements on the precise location of a delimitation, but

agreements on “questions re lating to the delimitation of the exclusive economic

zones or the continental shelf”. Thus, for example, an agreement between the

parties that a particular feature should not be considered as a base-point for the

purposes of delimitation would be an agre ement “relating to the delimitation of

the continental shelf”.

7.6. Thus, the various Procès Verbaux c oncluded between Romania and USSR in

1949, 1963 and 1974, establishing the directi on of the maritime boundary on the

94
TPPT North Sea Continental Shelf (Federal Republic of Germany/Denmark; Federal Republic of
Germany/Netherlands),Judgment, ICJ Reports 1969, pp. 46-47 (para. 85)
TPPT Ibid., p. 53 (para. 101(C)(1))

76 12 mile arc around Serpents ’ Island clearly constitute “agreements in force

relating to the delimitation”. To the extent that it determines the principles to be

applied in effecting the delimitation of this particular area, paragraph 4(a) to (e)

of the Additional Agreement constitutes as well “an agreement in force …

relating to the delimitation” of the exclusive economic zone and continental shelf

within the meaning of UNCLOS Articles 74(4) and 83(4), and is to be applied by

the Court as such.

7.7. Furthermore, having regard to the principle of primacy of agreement in maritime

delimitation (1982 UNCLOS Articles 74(1) and 83(1)), an agreement between

two Parties that certain principles are to be applicable in the negotiations for a

delimitation between them must be considered as equivalent to an agreement that

those same principles should be applied by the Court. By agreeing to resort to

judicial delimitation the parties ask the Court to determine on their behalf the

equitable solution having regard to the relevant circumstances, in case the parties

are unable to agree on such a solution themselves. In effect the Court is doing for
the parties what they have been unable to achieve for themselves. TPFThere would

be no point in agreement on the relevant factors in a delimitation if—the parties

having failed to agree on how they are to be applied—the Court were free to

ignore those factors in delimiting the boundary.

7.8. On that view, a State which had agreed, fo r example, that a particular feature was

to be considered a “rock” for the pur poses of Article 121(3), could simply

frustrate the negotiations by one means or another, in the expectation that its

agreement would be considered irrelevant by a Court. This cannot be correct or

consistent with the principle of good faith, which is underlined by Article 300 of

the 1982 UNCLOS. If a factor is agreed by the parties to be relevant or binding

for the delimitation, it must be equally relevant or binding for the Court in

carrying out the delimitation on th eir behalf. In short, fo r two States to say that,

TPPT Cf. the observation of the Court in North Sea Continental Shelf Cases (Federal Republic of
Germany/Denmark; Federal Republic of Germany/Netherlands), Judgment, ICJ Reports 1969 , p. 47
(para. 87) “the judicial settlement of international disputes ‘is simply an alternative to the direct and
friendly settlement of such disputes between the par ties’”, citing the Order of the Permanent Court in

Free Zones of Upper Savoy and the District of Gex (First Phase), P.C.I.J., 1929, Series A, No. 22, p. 13.

77 in their negotiations, aimed at reachi ng an agreement on a delimitation, certain

principles are applicable is to say that those same principles should also direct the

Court in its assessment of what is an equitable solution.

(2) Relevant agreements between Romania and Ukraine

7.9. Several agreements have been concl uded between Romania and the USSR and,

respectively, Ukraine that pertain to their common border. Apart of the
Romanian-Soviet Procès Verbaux, the pr ovisions of which wh ere presented in

detail in paragraphs 4.3 – 4.26 above, there are three agreements concluded

between Romania and Ukraine relevant fo r the common border, as specified in

paragraph 1.4 above. Their substantive pr ovisions, and the relationship between
them, must now be described.

(a) The Romanian-Soviet Procès Verbaux concluded in 1949, 1963 and 1974

7.10. The Romanian-Soviet Procès Verbau x concluded in 1949, 1963 and 1974 (both
the general detailed descriptions of the Romanian-Soviet border and the

individual Procès Verbaux drafted for pa rticular border signs, particularly for

border signs no.1438 (buoy) and 1439 (beac on)), as well as the 1954 Act

referring to the border sign no. 1439 esta blished the trace of the land and the
river border between Romania and the USSR and also the maritime boundary

from the final point of the river border unt il the area in the vicinity of Serpents’

Island (on the 12 mile exterior arc surrounding Serpents’ Island).

7.11. The provisions of the said Procès Verbaux have already been presented in detail.

Their significance and consequences upon the present case will be presented
further in Chapter 11 of this Memorial. For the moment it is sufficient to

emphasise that these documents represent agreements in force between Romania

and Ukraine, establishing the initial segment of the maritime boundary between

them, from Point F (the final point of the boundary delimiting the territorial seas
of the two States) on the 12-mile arc around Serpents’ Island.

78 (b) The Treaty on Relations

7.12. As noted above, the Treaty on Relations foresaw the conclusion of a separate

treaty on the border regime between the two States and the settlement of the

problem of the delimitation of their continental shel f and exclusive economic

zones.

7.13. Article 2 of the Treaty on Relations provides:

“1. The Contracting Parties, in accordance with the principles

and norms of international law and with the principles of the
Helsinki Final Act, reaffirm that the existing border between
them is inviolable and therefore, that they shall refrain, now and
in the future, from any attempt against this border, as well as

from any demand for, or act of, seizure and usurpation of part or
all the territory of the other Contracting Party.

2. The Contracting Parties shall c onclude a separate Treaty on

the regime of the border between the two states and shall settle
the problem of the delimitation of their continental shelf and
exclusive economic zones in the Black Sea on the basis of the

principles and procedures agre ed upon by exchange of letters
between the Ministers of Foreign Affairs, which shall take place
simultaneously with the signature of the Treaty. The
understandings included in this exchange of letters shall enter

into force simultaneously with the entry into force of this
Treaty.” TPFPT

7.14. Of particular significance here is the stip ulation contained in the last sentence.

This refers specifically to “[t]he unders tandings included in this exchange of

letters”, prominent among them the agreement on the principles applicable in the

delimitation. The Treaty on Relations and the Additional Agreement were

evidently considered as a “package” re flecting significant c oncessions made on

both sides.

97
TPPT Treaty on the Relations of Good Neighbourliness and Co-Operation between Romania and
Ukraine, signed at Constanţa, on 2 June 1997; 2159 United Nations Treaty Series 335 (Annex RM 1).

79 (c) The Additional Agreement

7.15. In addition to the 1982 UNCLOS, the princi ples recognised by the Parties in the

1997 Additional Agreement should be taken into account by the Court in

delimiting the continental shelf and the exclusive economic zone beyond the 12
nm arc around Serpents’ Island. They have th e status of agreed principles. It is

significant that they acquired that status at a time when Ukraine was not a party

to the 1982 UNCLOS. This Convention was not applicable at that time in

relation to the delimitation, and (absent la ter Ukrainian ratification) might never
have become applicable.

7.16. The Additional Agreement took the form of an exchange of letters between the
Ministers of Foreign Affairs of Romania and Ukraine, as envisaged by the Treaty

on Relations. In its paragraph 4, the Additional Agreement foresaw the

conclusion of a negotiated agreement on th e delimitation of the continental shelf
and the exclusive economic zones between the two States in the Black Sea and

proscribed the following principles as applicable to the negotiations:

“a) The principle stated in ar ticle 121 of the United Nations’
Convention on the Law of the Sea of December 10, 1982, as
applied in the practice of state and in international jurisprudence;

b) The principle of the equidistance line in areas submitted to
delimitation where the coasts are adjacent and the principle of

the median line in areas where the coasts are opposite;

c) The principle of equity a nd the method of proportionality,
as they are applied in the practi ce of state and the decisions of
international courts regarding the delimitation of continental
shelf and exclusive economic zones;

d) The principle according to wh ich neither of the Contracting
Parties shall contest the sovere ignty of the other Contracting

Party over any part of its territory adjacent to the zone submitted
to delimitation;

80 e) The principle of taking in to consideration the special
98
circumstances of the zone submitted to delimitation.” TPFPT

Paragraph (f) contains an undertaking by both States to refrain from exploitation

of the resources of the continental shel f and the exclusive economic zones from

the delimitation area, pending a solution of the problem, unless by agreement

via joint exploitation. Paragraph (g) pr ovides that the negotiations were to

begin as soon as possible and in any cas e within three months from the entry

into force of the Treaty on Relations. Paragraph (h) records the agreement

between the two Parties that the problem of the delimitation of the continental

shelf and exclusive economic zones might be submitted to this Court, subject to

the fulfilment of certain conditions, as described in Chapter 1.

(d) The 2003 Border Regime Treaty

7.17. As set out above in Chapter 4 of this Memorial, the 2003 Border Regime Treaty

was concluded as foreseen by the 1997 agreements, and delimited the land and

sea boundary between the two States out to the point where the outer limit of

Romania’s territorial sea meets the 12 nm arc drawn around Serpents’ Island at

Point F.

7.18. As also set above, the agreed maritime boundary adopts the boundary as in

force between Romania and the USSR upon the independence of Ukraine in

1991. This boundary is that under the September 1949 Procès Verbal (as

incorporated in the 1949 and, subsequently, the 1961 Border Regime Treaty)

and the subsequent Procès Verbaux, in particular, the 1963 Procès Verbal and

the 1974 Procès Verbal together with th e accompanying individual descriptions

of the border points.

TPPT Agreement Additional to the Treaty on the Relations of Good Neighbourliness and Co-
Operation between Romania and Ukraine, concluded by exchange of letters between the Ministers of
Foreign Affairs of Romania and Ukraine, done on 2 June 1997; 2159 United Nations Treaty Series 357
(Romanian letter), 363 (Ukrainian counterpart) (Annex RM 2).

817.19. The question of territorial sea delimitation is not before the Court. That being

so, the principal importance of the 2003 Bo rder Regime Treaty (other than in

relation to the question of the jurisdiction of the Court) is that the final point of
the boundary defined by the 2003 Treaty (Point F) constitutes the starting point

of the delimitation line which the Cour t is called upon to establish. The 2003

Treaty stops at Point F because it rela tes exclusively to the land, river and
maritime boundary up to the outer limit of the territorial sea. Agreement on the

territorial sea boundary is entirely without prejudice to earlier agreements on the

character of the 12 nm boundary around Se rpents’ Island, and the criteria to be

applied in completing the maritime delimitation.

(3) Conclusions

7.20. In accordance with the primacy of agreem ent in delimitation, to the extent that

agreements have been concluded betw een Romania and Ukraine (or between
Romania and the USSR, which bind Ukraine by way of succession) delimiting

the maritime zones between them outside the territorial sea, those agreements

are controlling as to the respective entitlements of the Parties.

7.21. Further, the principles recognised by the Parties in the 1997 Additional

Agreement fall to be applied by the Court in delimiting the continental shelf and

the exclusive economic z ones and govern the delim itation where the boundary
has not already been so agreed.

82 CHAPTER 8

THE PRINCIPLES IDENTIFIED IN THE ADDITIONAL

AGREEMENT

(1) Introduction

8.1 The principles identified in paragraph 4 of the Additional Agreement are

evidently not disjoined from the general international law of maritime
delimitation as applied by this Court and by arbitral tribunals. Two of these

principles specifically refer to Stat e practice and international case-law

(principles a) and c)), and the application of the three others cannot ignore these

elements as well. Nonetheless the items selected for specific mention in
paragraph 4 are significant, as is the order in which they are listed. They reflect

an appreciation by the Parties, with knowle dge of the dispute, as to the most

relevant factors.

8.2 This Chapter will analyse each of th ese principles, having regard to the
language of paragraph 4 and any consider ations arising from State practice or

the jurisprudence which may be relevant to the present dispute. The detailed

application of the principles to the geogr aphical situation before the Court will

be discussed in Part III of this Memorial.

8.3 The application of the principles provided for by the Additional Agreement
leads to a method of delimitation in fullconformity with the jurisprudence of

various international courts, mainly with the recent case-law of this Court. This

method consists in first drawing a provi sional equidistant/median line between

the relevant coasts of the two Stat es, and then analysing the relevant
circumstances of the delimitation area and eventually shifting the position of the

equidistant/median line to accommodate them in order to achieve an equitable

result. (2) Article 121 of the 1982 UNCLOS

8.4 Paragraph 4 a) of the Additional Agreement refers to:

“The principle stated in artic le 121 of the United Nations’
Convention on the Law of the Sea of December 10, 1982, as
applied in the practice of st ates and in international
jurisprudence”.

8.5 Article 121 of the 1982 UNCLOS lays down the regime of islands and in
particular the ability of islands to genera te maritime zones for the coastal State.

It provides:

“Regime of islands

1. An island is a naturally formed area of land, surrounded
by water, which is above water at high tide.

2. Except as provided for in para graph 3, the territorial sea,
the contiguous zone, the exclusive economic zone and the

continental shelf of an island ar e determined in accordance with
the provisions of this Convention applicable to other land
territory.

3. Rocks which cannot sustain human habitation or
economic life of their own shall have no exclusive economic
zone or continental shelf.”

(a) The origins of Article 121

(i) The travaux préparatoires of the 1982 UNCLOS

8.6 The origins of the present Article 121 of the 1982 UNCLOS are to be found in

the different approaches on the role of islands in maritime delimitations that

were promoted by various States in the process of drafting and adoption of the
text. The travaux préparatoires show the intention of some States to clarify the

rules applicable to the entitlement of islands to maritime areas. Thus, the 1958

Convention on the Territorial Sea and Contiguous Zone and the 1958

Convention on the Continental Shelf retained a “non-discriminatory” regime for

84 all islands TPFPT in spite of proposals to define islands as being “capable of

100
effective occupation and control” TPF PT

8.7 During the Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea, delegations

showed concern for limiting th e possibility of small features like rocks, islets

and small islands to generate important areas of continental shelf and exclusive

economic zones. Thus, the Ambassador of Malta strongly criticized the

“possibility of States sovereign over isles like Clipperton, Guam,

Açores, Saint Helen and Easter Island to extend their jurisdiction
101
over millions of square kilometres […]” TPF FPT

8.8. Romania assumed a leading role among the States that argued for a limited

effect of small features to generate maritime spaces. Romania’s approach on the

capacity of islands to generate maritim e spaces and on the role that maritime

features have to be given in maritime delimitations was consistent, public and

102
influential in the adoption of Article 121 TPF . Romania’s determination in this

respect was openly driven by its preoccupation that the new instrument

governing the law of the sea should reflect its position as to Serpents’ Island not

having any effect on the delimitation of the exclusive economic zones and the

continental shelf in the Black Sea.

99
TPPT Article 10 of the 1958 Convention on the Territorial Sea and Contiguous Zone granted
territorial sea to any permanent above-water elevation. Article 1 of the 1958 Convention on the

Continental Shelf made no distinction between the continental shelf of continental coasts and that of
islands.
100
TP PT Proposal of Sir Hersch Lauterpacht during the International Law Commission debates, 1954,
Yearbook of the International Law Commission , 1954, I, p. 92. The proposal was submitted also by the

United Kingdom, Australia, New Zeeland, India and South Africa during the 1930 Codification
Conference – Base de Discussion, Conférence pour la codification du droit international de la Société

des Nations, Vol. II (Eaux territoriales), Doc. C 74 M 39, 1929 V, Geneva, 1929.
TP1PT Official Documents, United Nations, General Assembly, First Commission, 22 Pd Session, p. 10,

para. 67.
TP2PT See Robert Kolb, "L’interprétation de l’article 121, paragraphe 3, de la Convention de Montego

Bay sur le droit de la mer: Les rochers qui ne se prêtent pas à l’habitation humaine ou à une vie
économique propre…", Annuaire Français de Droit International XL, 1994, Editions de CNRS, Paris, p.

891: "It's from the junction of the Romanian-Turkish and African proposals that Article 121 paragraph 3
was born" (« C’est de la jonction des propositions roumano - turques et africaines que naîtra l’article 121

paragraphe 3. »).

858.9 Thus, at the 1973 session of the Sea- Bed Committee of the Conference on the

Law of the Sea, Romania proposed the in troduction of a new ar ticle, addressing

the maritime areas surrounding islets and small islands, which read as follows:

“1. Islets and small islands, uninhabited and without
economic life, which are situated on the continental shelf of the

coast, do not possess any of the shelf or other marine space of

the same nature.

2. Such islands may have waters – of their own or forming part
of the territorial sea of the coas t – the extent of which shall be

determined by agreement, taking into account all the

circumstances affecting the maritime area concerned and all
relevant geographical, geological and other features. The waters

thus determined shall not, in a ny event, affect marine spaces
103
which belong to the State or to neighboring States.” TPF FPT

8.10. The 1973 Romanian proposal was the fi rst document of the Conference to

propose the criterion of economic life for a feature to be entitled to maritime
104
areas TPF F.T

8.11. At the second session in 1974, Romania suggested that only islands, and not low-

tide elevations, isle ts or small uninha bited islands without economic life and

situated outside the territorial sea, were to be taken into consideration in

delimiting ocean space between neighbouring States TPF5F.T

8.12. Further, Romania proposed a definition for “islets” and “islands similar to an

2 106
islet”, on the basis of size (l ess, or greater, than 1 km P) TPF PT Islands similar to

islets were restricted to any island “which is not or cannot be inhabited

TP3PT Document A/AC.138/SC.II/L.53, reproduced in III Sea-Bed Committee Report, 28 General

Assembly Official Records (1973), Supp. No 21, 106 (Romania), see also United Nations Convention on
the Law of the Sea 1982 – A Commentary, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2002, vol III, 324-39.
TP4PT Syméon Karagiannis, "Les rochers que ne se prêtent pas à l’habitation humaine ou à une vie

économique propre et le droit de la mer", Revue Belge de Droit International, 1996/2, Éditions Bruylant,
Bruxelles, p. 574.
105
TP PT Document A/CONF.62/C.2/L.18 (1974), article 2, paragraphs 2-5, III Official Records 195
(Romania).
TP6PT Document A/CONF. 62/C.2/L.53 (1974) articles 1 and 2, III Official Records 228 (Romania).

86 107
(permanently) or which does not or cannot have its own economic life”. TPFFPThe

proposal stated that:

“1. In principle, a State may not invoke the existence, in one
of its maritime zones, of islets or islands similar to islets, as

defined in article 1, for the pur pose of extending the marine
spaces which belong to its coasts.

2. Where such elevations of land are situated along the coast
of the same State, in immediate proximity thereto, they shall be
taken into consideration, in accordance with the provisions of

this Convention, for the purpose of establishing the baseline
from which the breadth of the territorial sea is measured.

3. Where an islet or island simila r to an islet is situated in
the territorial sea of the same St ate but very close to its outer

limit, the State in question may reasonably extend its territorial
waters seaward or establish an additional maritime zone for the

protection of lighthouses or other installations on such islet or
island. The additional zones thus established shall in no way
affect the marine spaces belonging to the coasts of the

neighboring State or States.

4. Islets or islands similar to islets which are situated

beyond the territorial sea, on the continental shelf or in the
economic zone of the same State, may have around them or

around some of their sectors secur ity areas or even territorial
waters in so far this is without prejudice to the marine spaces
which belong to the coasts of the neighboring State or States.”

8.13. At the eleventh session (1982), Romania proposed the addition of a new

paragraph (4) to article 121, reading:

“4. Uninhabited islets should not have any effects on the
maritime spaces belonging to the main coasts of the States
concerned” TPFFPT

The representative of Romania explai ned that the proposal was intended to

“prevent any State from encroaching on the maritime zones of another State by

109
invoking the existence of uninhabited islands in the delimitation area” TPF.PT

107
108PT Document A/CONF. 62/C.2/L.53 (1974) articles1 and 2, III Official Records 228 (Romania).
TP PT Document A/CONF.62/L.118 (1982), article 121, paragraph 4, XVI Official Records 225
(Romania).

878.14. Proposals of other delegations also supported this position. Thus:

a) Malta proposed the definition of an “isl et” as a “naturally formed area of

land, less than one square kilometre in area, surrounded by water, which is

above water at high tide”. According to Malta’s pr oposal, States could not

claim jurisdiction over maritime spaces by virtue of sovereignty or control

over islets TPF .PT

b) A group of 14 African States submitted a proposal that lim ited the right of

all islands (not only rocks or islets) to maritime spaces:

“Maritime spaces of islands shall be determined according to

equitable principles, taking into account all relevant factors and
circumstances, including, inter alia:

- the size of the islands;

- the population or the absence thereof;
- their contiguity to the principal territory;

- whether or not they are situated on the continental shelf of

another territory;
- their geological and geomorphological structure and
111
configuration” TPF .PT

The proposal was re-iterated by another group of five States TPF .PT

c) Turkey proposed that paragraph (3) of what become ar ticle 121 would be

drafted “Rocks shall have no marine space of their own”. The Turkish

proposal only allowed islands with a surface of at least one tenth of the State

109 th
TP PT 169 P PPlenary Meeting (1982), para 53, XVI Official Records, 97.
TP0PT Document A/AC.138/SC.II/L.28, articles 1 and 9, reproduced in III Sea-Bed Committee Report,
28 General Assembly Official Records (1973), Supp. No 21, at 35, 37 and 40 (Malta).
111
TP PT Document A/AC.138/SC.II/L.40 and Corr. 1-3, article XII, reproduced in III Sea-Bed
Committee Report, 28 General Assembly Official Records (1973), Supp. No 21, at 87, 89 (Algeria,

Cameroon, Ghana, Ivory Coast, Kenya, Liberia, Madagascar, Mauritius, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Somalia,
Sudan, Tunisia, Tanzania).
TP2PT Document A/AC.138/SC.II/L.43 reproduced in n III Sea-Bed Committee Report, 28 General

Assembly Official Records (1973), Supp. No 21, at 98 (Cameroon, Kenya, Madagascar, Tunisia,
Turkey).

88 to which they belonged to have a co ntinental shelf and exclusive economic

zone TPF .PT

d) The text adopted on 28 April 1975 by the informal group on islands stated

expressly that in order to be entitled to continental shelf and exclusive

economic zone, an island should be able to sustain population on a

114
permanent basis TPF PTThe group recalled the position of the Turkish

delegation, stating that “military or poli ce installations are not sufficient for

generating exclusive economic zones”.

e) Ireland submitted a draft article on delimiting the continental shelf between

neighbouring States, together with an explanatory note, stating that:

“It is generally agreed that offshore islands should not be used as

the base-point for measuring an equidistance boundary line in all

circumstances”.

8.15. These initiatives show the broad support of the Third United Nations Conference

on the Law of the Sea for the approach put forward by Romania and the like-

minded States. Moreover, the proposals submitted during the Conference show

that the intention of the parties was not to limit the effect of Article 121 (3) to

what it can be strictly understood by “rocks”.

8.16. The text of article 121 (3) a ppeared for the first time in the present form in the

Texte unique de negotiation (officieux) , elaborated by the Presidents of the

115
Conference in 1975 TPF PTThe article remained unchanged in the revised
116
negotiating texts of 1976, 1977, 1979 and the 1980 Draft Convention TPF PT Even

though the text of the present Article 121 does not contain the precise language

TP3PT Document A/CONF.62/C.2/L.55, Official Records, vol. III, p. 266.
114
TP PT Platzöder, Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea Documents, Oceana
Publications, Dobbs Ferry, New York, vol. IV, p. 222.
TP5PT Article 132 corresponded to the present article 121. Document A/CONF. 62/WP.8.
116
TP PT Documents A/CONF. 62/WP.8 Rev.1, A/C ONF. 62/WP.10, A/CONF. 62/WP.10 Rev.1,
A/CONF. 62/WP.10 Rev.3.

89 of the Romanian proposals as submitted during the Conference (which is normal

in the context of a multilateral negotiation of this kind), the travaux

préparatoires demonstrate that this text shoul d be read as c overing not only

rocks stricto senso, but also any minor maritime feature unable to sustain human

habitation or economic life of its own.

8.17. It is important to note th e position of the USSR c oncerning article 121. During

the 11 PhPSession (1982), when various proposals to amend the existing text were

made (among them a British proposal to suppress paragraph 3), the USSR joined

other delegations in opposition TPF .PT

8.18. It is also important to note that the USSR and the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist

Republic gave their agreement on the text , based also on the Russian official

version of article 121(3), whose reading is even clearer than the English, French

and Spanish ones. Thus, the words “ cannot sustain […] econom ic life of their

own” read in Russian “не пригодны для […] самостоятельной хозяйственной

деятельности”, which may be literally translated al “ self-sustaining economic

activity” (emphasis added). This reinforces the interpretation that the “economic

118
life” - criterion should be interpreted strictly TPF PT

8.19. In conclusion, the travaux préparatoires show that the intention of the parties

was to embrace the new approach towards entitlements of islands to maritime

spaces, which aimed at more clearly regulating these entitlements. Moreover, the

travaux préparatoires show that States intended to extend the application of the

present article 121 (3) to a larger range of features situated above waters at high

tide. Romania’s position to this effect was consistent and public.

117 th
TP PT Official Records, Vol. XVI, 169 P PSession, paragraph 32 s, p. 105; Official Records, Vol. XVI,
170 PPSession, para. 27, p. 111.
TP8PT Thus, in an article published in 1999, J. Charney notes that native Russian speakers consulted

seem to disagree as to whether this text would permit the purchase of necessities from outside sources –
see Jonathan I.Charney, “Rocks That Cannot Sustain Human Habitation”, 93 AJIL 863, October 1999.

90(ii) Romania’s Declaration concerning Article 121

8.20. Upon signature of the 1982 UNCLOS, Romania made the following declaration:

“1. As a geographically disadva ntaged country bordering a sea
poor in living resources, the Socialist Republic of Romania
reaffirms the necessity to devel op international cooperation for

the exploitation of the living resources of the economic zones, on
the basis of just and equitable ag reements that should ensure the
access of the countries from this category to the fishing resources
in the economic zones of other regions or subregions.

2. The Socialist Republic of Ro mania reaffirms the right of
coastal States to adopt measures to safeguard their security
interests, including the right to adopt national laws and

regulations relating to the passa ge of foreign warships through
their territorial sea.

The right to adopt such measures is in full conformity with
articles 19 and 25 of the Convention, as it is also specified in the
Statement by the President of the United Nations Conference on
the Law of the Sea in the plenar y meeting of the Conference on
26 April 1982.

3. The Socialist Republic of Romania states that according to the
requirements of equity – as it results from articles 74 and 83 of
the Convention on the Law of the Sea – the uninhabited islands
without economic life can in no way affect the delimitation of
the maritime spaces belonging to the mainland coasts of the
coastal States.”

8.21. When depositing its instrument of ra tification on 17 December 1996, Romania

re-iterated this declaration.

8.22. Neither the USSR nor Ukraine made any comment or objection to the Romanian

declaration. Nor did any other State.

8.23. Article 309 of the 1982 Convention prohibits States making reservations to the

Convention. Nevertheless, declarations al low States to make clear their position
on the interpretation or application of the text. In this sense, Romania’s

declaration reinforces the interpretation of article 121 (3) that results from the

travaux préparatoires, that the term “rocks” should be interpreted in an extensive

91 way, as covering any and all minor maritime features incapable of sustaining

human habitation or economic life of their own.

8.24. Romania's declaration does not alter, m odify or supersede any provision of the

1982 UNCLOS. It does not represent a reserv ation in the sense of articles 2-(1)-
(d) and 19-21 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties.

8.25. According to the definition in Article 2 -(1)-(d) of the Vienna Convention on the
Law of Treaties,

“’Reservation’ means a unilateral statement, however phrased or
named, made by a State when signing, ratifying, accepting,
approving or acceding to a treaty, whereby it purports to exclude
or to modify the legal effect of cer tain provisions of the treaty in
their application to that State” (emphasis added).

In the present case, Romania did not have the intention to exclude or to modify

the effect of any provision of the 1982 UN CLOS. Nevertheless, its declaration is
not without legal effect both for Romania and the other contracting parties.

8.26. International law recognises the possibility of such interpretative declarations,
which correspond in all respects to the definition recently adopted by the

International Law Commission in its Guide to Practice on Reservation to

Treaties:

“’Interpretative declaration’ means a unilateral declaration,
however phrased or named, made by a State or by an
international organization, wh ereby that State or that
organization purports to clarify th e meaning or scope attributed
by the declarant to the treaty or to certain of its provisions”.

This is precisely the legal effect of th e Romanian declaration, which constitutes,

therefore, an interpretative declaration and not a reservation.

8.27. As explained by the International Law Co mmission, the controlling effect is the

“legal effect [that the unilateral statement] purports to produce” and

92 “[w]hen a treaty prohibits reserv ation to all [as does Article 399

of the 1982 UNCLOS] or certain of its provisions, a unilateral
statement formulated in respect thereof by a State […] shall be
presumed not to constitute a reservation, except where it purports

to exclude or modify the legal effects of certain provisions of the
treaty or of the treaty as a whole, with respect to certain specific
aspects in their application to its author”.

8.28. Furthermore, the conformity of the Romanian Declaration with the object and the

purpose of the 1982 UNCLOS has been acknowledged in the literature. Thus, in

an article on the declarations made by the States signatories of the 1982

UNCLOS written in 1983, Daniel Vignes underlines that

“Concerning the Romanian declaration, as far as it refers to
uninhabited islands…and not to rocks (lik e Article 121.3), it

seems to maintain a certain logics regarding the jurisprudence
on delimitations, since, such isla nds being assimilated to the
rocks of paragraph 3, which ha ve neither exclusive economic

zone, nor shelf, it seems normal that they not be taken into
account in a delimitation of exclusive economic zones or
continental shelf.” TPFFPT

8.29. Articles 74, 83 and 121 (3) became binding as between Romania and Ukraine by

virtue of the 1997 Additional Agreemen t. Ukraine had notice of Romania’s

declaration, made in 1982 a nd re-iterated in 1996. Ukraine did not react to this

declaration. Therefore, the law represented by article 74, 83 and 121 of the 1982

UNCLOS should be applied in light of the interpreta tion stated in Romania’s

declaration.

8.30. Moreover, when ratifying the 1982 UNCLOS in 1999, Ukraine made no

declaration or objection to Romania’s declaration. The 1982 UNCLOS, in force

between Romania and Ukraine since 25 August 1999, must be applied and

119
TPPT « Pour ce qui concerne la déclaration roumaine, à ceci près qu’elle vise les îles inhabitées…et
pas les rochers (comme l’article 121.3), elle semble conserver une certaine logique à l’égard de la
jurisprudence sur la délimitation puisque, de telles îles étant assimilées aux rochers du paragraphe 3,
qui n’ont ni zone économique exclusive ni plateau, il semble normal qu’elles ne soient pas prises en
compte dans une délimitation de zone économique exclusive ou de plateau continental ».- Daniel Vignes,
"Les déclarations faites par les Etats signataires de la Convention des Nations Unies sur le droit de la
mer, sur la base de l’article 310 de cette Convention", A.F.D.I. 1983, p. 733.

93 interpreted by the Court on the basis of the only interpretation accepted by

Romania, as stated in the above quoted declaration.

(b) Significance of the applicability of Article 121

8.31. The choice of Article 121 “as applied in State practice and in international case-

law” as the first principle of delimitati on to be applied by the Parties shows the

great importance they attached to it in the context of the present case. This

significance is even greater as certain factors are further analysed.

8.32. At the time the 1997 Additional Agreement was concluded, the 1982 UNCLOS

was not in force between Romania and Ukraine, the latter not yet having ratified
it. Instead, the law applicable between the two Parties was represented by the

first and fourth of the 1958 Geneva Conventions. The definition of “island”, as

well as the entitlement of islands to maritime areas, had been clearly established
by the 1958 Conventions. On these aspects, the first two para graphs of Article

121 of the 1982 UNCLOS brought nothing new.

8.33. By contrast, the third paragraph of Article 121 represented something new in the

relations between Romania and Ukraine, as its provisions had no similar

precedent in the applicable law between the Parties and, in 1997, its status under

customary international law was not beyond doubt or argument. The specific
reference in the Additional Agreement to Article 121 has the significance of

putting beyond question the direct relevan ce of its third para graph, referring to

rocks which cannot sustain human habita tion or economic life of their own. The
only feature of the delimitation area to which this paragraph could refer is

Serpents’ Island.

8.34. At the time when the Additional Agreement was signed and entered into force,

Ukraine was well aware of the declarat ion made by Romania upon its signature

94 of the 1982 UNCLOS, and confirmed upon ratification TPF0PTUnder these

circumstances, Ukraine’s acceptance of the reference to Article 121 as one of the

principles to be applied in delimitation, clearly indicate that Ukraine accepted the

applicability of the thir d paragraph of Article 121, as interpreted by the

Romanian declaration, to the present situation.

8.35. In 1997 Ukraine made no suggestion that Se rpents’ Island was entitled to larger

areas of exclusive economic zone and c ontinental shelf lying to the south and

south-east beyond the 12 nm limit previously agreed. If Ukraine had wished to

keep such a claim alive – knowing, as it must have done, that the Soviet Union

had maintained it in earlier negotiations , and knowing, at the same time, the

content of the Romanian declaration made upon signature, and confirmed upon

ratification, of the 1982 UNCLOS – the onus was on it to do so.

(c) Article 121 in the jurisprudence of this Court and other tribunals

8.36. Paragraph 4 a) of the Additional Agr eement refers to Article 121 of the

UNCLOS as applied by State practice and international case-law (emphasis

added). Consequently, the relevant international jurisprudence needs to be

analysed.

8.37. In the case concerning Maritime Delimitation and Territorial Questions Between

Qatar and Bahrain, the Court stated that that the “legal definition of an island”

was that contained in Article 121(1) of the 1982 UNCLOS and Article 10(1) of

121
the 1958 Convention as a matter of general international law. TPFFIn the

circumstances of the case, there was no reason for the Court to make any

reference to Article 121(3), and it did not do so.

120
121PT See paras. 8.20-8.30 of this Chapter.
TP PT Maritime Delimitation and Territorial Questi ons Between Qatar and Bahrain (Qatar v.
Bahrain), Judgment, ICJ Reports 2001 , p. 99 (para. 195). Neither Qatar nor Bahrain was party to the
1958 Convention; and only Bahrain was party to the 1982 UNCLOS (see ibid., p. 91 (para. 167)),
although both agreed that most provisions of the 1982 UNCLOS relevant to the dispute represented

custom (ibid.)

958.38. It may also be noted that the Denm ark/Iceland Jan Ma yen Conciliation

Commission expressed the view that Article 121 in its entirety “reflect[ed] the

present status of international law”, and this even before the adoption of the final

122
text of the 1982 UNCLOS. TPF FPT

8.39. By contrast this Court has yet to pr onounce on the application of Article 121(3)

directly, although reference was made to the provision in passing in the Jan

Mayen case. TPFFPJan Mayen itself was of course much too large a feature to

qualify as a “rock” for the purposes of Article 121(3).

8.40. It may also be noted in this context that in the Continental Shelf (Libyan Arab

Jamahiriya/Malta) case, the Court, having early in the judgment described the

124
small island of Filfla as an “uninhabited rock”, TPFFthen held as follows:

“An immediate qualification of th e median line which the Court

considers must be made concerns the basepoints from which it is
to be constructed. The lin e put forward by Malta was

constructed from the low-water mark of the Libyan coast, but
with regard to the Maltese coast from straight baselines (inter

alia) connecting the is land of Malta to the uninhabited islet of
Filfla. The Court does not expr ess any opinion on whether the

inclusion of Filfla in the Maltese baselines was legally justified;
but in any event the baselines as determined by coastal States are

not per se identical with the point s chosen on a coast to make it
possible to calculate the area of continental shelf appertaining to

that State. In this case, the e quitableness of an equidistance line
depends on whether the precaution is taken of eliminating the

disproportionate effect of certain ‘islets, rocks and minor coastal

projections’, to use the langua ge of the Court in its 1969
Judgment […]. The Court thus finds it equitable not to take

122
TP PT Conciliation Commission on the Continental Shelf Area Between Iceland and Jan Mayen :
Report and Recommendations to the Governments of Iceland and Norway, (1981) International Legal
Materials, vol. 20, p. 797, at pp. 803-804.
123
TP PT Maritime Delimitation in the Area between Gree nland and Jan Mayen (Denmark v. Norway),
Judgment, ICJ Reports 1993, pp. 64-65 (para. 60) and pp. 73-74, (para. 80). Cf. the declaration of Judge
Evensen who regarded Art. 121(3) as representing custom. The reference to Art. 121(3) was made in the

context of argument by Denmark not that Jan Mayen was not capable of generating a continental shelf or
EEZ, but that, by analogy with Art. 121(3), Jan Mayen should be given reduced weight in delimiting the
respective maritime zones appertaining to Greenland and Jan Mayen in the light of the fact that it could
not “ sustain and has not sustained human habitation or economic life of its own ” (ICJ Reports 1993, pp.

12474 (para. 60)).
TP PT Continental Shelf (Libyan Arab Jamahiriya/Malta) , Judgment, ICJ Reports 1985 , p. 20 (para.
15).

96 account of Filfla in the calculation of the provisional median line
between Malta and Libya…” TPF5FPT

In the Libya/Malta case, the 1982 UNCLOS was not applicable, given that

neither party had ratified it and that in any case it had not at that time acquired

126
the requisite number of signatures in order to enter into force. TPF FPThe case was

accordingly not argued in terms of whet her Filfla was a “rock” within the

127
meaning of Article 121(3) of the 1982 UNCLOS TPF PT Nevertheless, the solution

adopted by the Court arrived at the same result.

TP5PT Continental Shelf (Libyan Arab Jamahiriya/Malta), Judgment, ICJ Reports 1985, p. 48 (para.

64), quoting North Sea Continental Shelf (Federal Republic of Germany/Denmark; Federal Republic of
Germany/Netherlands), Judgment, ICJ Reports 1969, p. 36 (para. 57).
TP6PT Continental Shelf (Libyan Arab Jamahiriya/Malta) , Judgment, ICJ Reports 1985 , p. 29 (para.

26).
TP7 PT There are striking similarities existing betw een Serpents’ Island (see Chapter 9 of this

Memorial) and Filfla, which is a rocky formation, w ith little or no soil, having as the main geographic
feature a sort of plateau, covering an area of 2.5 hectares. A description of Filfla can be found at the
internet address http://www.geocities.com/diomedea.geo/Filfla.HTML .TH

The description posted at the mentioned internet address reads as follows:
“Filfla is barren, there are no trees, but a variety of shrubs and plants managed to take root (…)

Insect life also abounds and one can find: ants, flies and moths. Spiders and scorpions are also
present. Due to isolation, Filfla produced an interesting variety of animal lspecies. In the Maltese
Islands we find one species of Wall Lizard (Podarcis filfolensis), Filfla hosts the nominate race

which is larger than the others found on the other islands. It is black in colour with various blue and
green spots. A top snail Helicella spratti var. desp otti is endemic to Filfla. A cricket and a beetle
found also on Filfla, both have a limited distribution on the Maltese Islands.

The most important animal group found on Filfla belongs to the avian family, particularly the
seabirds. No less than four species have been found breeding on Filfla. The largest is the Yellow-

Legged Gull Larus cachinnans, nesting mainly on the top of the island. Some 150 pairs nest on
Filfla. The birds start arriving in December and breeding starts in March, where two to three eggs
are laid in a shallow nest on the ground. The members of the Procellariidae have been found

breeding on Filfla; Cory's Shearwater Calonectris diomedea, Levantine Shearwater and the Storm
Petrel Hydrobates pelagicus. These are all pelagic birds, coming ashore only to breed, and they do
this in complete darkness. The characteristic feature of these birds is the two tubular nostrils at the

base of the bill. About 50 pairs of Cory's Shearwater lay their single egg beneath boulders. They
arrive in February and the young leave the colony by the second week of October. The smaller
Levantine Shearwater possibly breeds in very small numbers. But, the most important bird on Filfla

is the Storm Petrel (Kangu ta' Filfla in Maltese). In the not so distant past it was believed that it was
to be found only on Filfla in the Maltese archipelago”.

Thus, far from being a mere piece of stone protruding from the waters, Filfla has a fairly significant
fauna and flora.
Also, on Filfla a small chapel dedicated to the Assumption of Our Lady was built inside a cave in

1343, where, every Sunday, mass was held for the fishermen fishing around this maritime formation.
Another resemblance with the Serpents’ Island is also noticeable: the erosion process (in accordance
with the commentary on the above mentioned website, “winter storms are washing away the underlaying

clay, and the coralline limestone topping it, breaks and falls into the waters”) or the dangers for
navigation (the same source notes that “berthing a boat is extremely dangerous, due to loose rocks and
boulders”).

978.41. As to State practice and the international case-law regarding the role of islands,

islets and other minor maritime feat ures in maritime delimitations more

generally, this will be analysed in deta il in paras. 8.86-8.123 of this Chapter,

dealing with maritime features as relevant/special circumstances in the context

of principle 4 e) of the Additional Agreement.

(3) The principle of equidistance: adjacent and opposite coasts

8.42. Paragraph 4 b) of the Additional Agreement refers to:

“b) The principle of the equidistance line in areas submitted
to delimitation where the coasts are adjacent and the principle of

the median line in areas where the coasts are opposite”.

8.43. Paragraph 4 b) addresses the general s ituation of adjacent and opposite coasts.

Having regard to the fact that only a single maritime feature impinges on the

delimitation area, and that this situ ation has already been addressed in

paragraph 4 a), it is evident that the focu s of paragraph 4 b) is the situation of

mainland coasts, whether opposite or adjacen t. In relation to such coasts, the

dominant principle is that of e quidistance, unless there are special

circumstances dictating some other solu tion. In paragraph 4 b) the Parties

specifically recognised this.

8.44. This Court in the Jan Mayen case concluded that “both for the continental shelf

and for the fishery zones in this case, it is proper to be gin the process of

delimitation by a median line provisionally drawn”, TPF8Fand then went on to

consider the factors which might require an adjustment to that provisional
129
line.TPF FPT

128
TP PT Maritime Delimitation in the Area between Gree nland and Jan Mayen (Denmark v. Norway),
Judgment, ICJ Reports 1993, p. 62 (para. 53). For the Court’s discussion of the appropriateness of use of
starting from a provisional median line, see ICJ Reports 1993, pp. 59-62, (paras. 49-53), referring to the
approach adopted by the Court in the Libya/Malta (Continental Shelf (Libyan Arab Jamahiriya/Malta),
ICJ Reports 1984, p. 13) and Gulf of Maine (Delimitation of the Maritime Boundary in the Gulf of Maine

129a, ICJ Reports 1984, p. 246).
TP PT ICJ Reports 1993, pp. 62-63 (paras. 54-56).

988.45. Similarly, in the Qatar/Bahrain case, having referred to the approach adopted in

the Jan Mayen case, the Court followed the same course, ruling that:

“For the delimitation of the maritime zones beyond the 12-mile zone

it will first provisionally draw an equidistance line and then consider
whether there are circumstances which must lead to an adjustment of
130
that line.” TPFFPT

8.46. In the Boundary Dispute between Dubai and Sharjah , the Arbitral Tribunal

applied the method of equi distance, which had been previously agreed upon by

the two parties. It stated that:

“this Court [wa]s satisfied that use of the equidistance method [wa]s
generally appropriate to, and requi red in, the present case and that
the delimitation of the maritime boundary between the Parties

beyond their respective territorial seas should properly be based
upon this method where that boundary [wa]s unaffected by the

presence of the island of Abu Musa which [wa]s the only “special
circumstance” of which account must be taken in the area
131
concerned”. TPFFPT

8.47. As the Court said in Cameroon/Nigeria:

“The Court has on various occa sions made it clear what the

applicable criteria, principles and rules of delimitation are when a
line covering several zones of coin cident jurisdictions is to be

determined. They are expresse d in the so-called equitable
principles/relevant circumstances method. This method, which is

very similar to the equidistan ce/special circumstances method
applicable in delimitation of the territorial sea, involves first drawing

an equidistance line, then consid ering whether there are factors
calling for the adjustment or shifting of that line in order to achieve
132
an equitable result.” TPF FPT

8.48. In the context of delimitations between opposite coasts, the equidistance

principle has a particular significance. Thus, the 1977 Anglo-French Court of

Arbitration observed that

130
TP PT Maritime Delimitation and Territorial Questions between Qatar and Bahrain (Qatar v.
Bahrain), Judgment, ICJ Reports 2001, p. 111 (para. 230).
TP1PT Dubai-Sharjah Border Arbitration(1981) I.L.R., vol. 91, p. 542 (paras. 672-673).
TP2PT Land and Maritime Boundary between Cameroon and Nigeria (Cameroon v. Nigeria;

Equatorial Guinea intervening), ICJ Reports 2002, judgment of 10 October 2002, para. 288.

99 “it seems …to be in accord not only with the legal rules

governing the continental shelf but also with State practice to
seek the solution in a method modifying or varying the

equidistance method rather than to have recourse to a wholly
different criterion of delimitation.” TPF FPT

8.49. In the Jan Mayen case, where the 1958 Geneva C onvention was applicable, the

Court, having referred to the 1977 decision of th e Anglo-French Court of

Arbitration, observed that:

“If the equidistance-special ci rcumstances rule of the 1958

Convention is, in the light of th is 1977 Decision, to be regarded

as expressing a general norm ba sed on equitable principles, it
must be difficult to find any ma terial difference—at any rate in

regard to delimitation between opposite coasts—between the
effect of Article 6 and the effect of the customary rule which also
134
requires a delimitation based on equitable principles.” TPFFPT

The Court went on to observe that:

“Prima facie, a median line delimitation between opposite coasts
results in general in an equita ble solution, particularly if the

coasts in question are nearly parallel. When, as in the present

case, delimitation is required between opposite coasts which are
insufficiently far apart for both to enjoy the full 200-mile

extension of continental shelf and other rights over maritime
spaces recognized by international law, the median line will be

equidistant also from the two 200-mile limits, and may prima
facie be regarded as effecting an equitable division of the
135
overlapping area.” TPF FPT

8.50. In the Libya/Malta case, the Court stated that:

“It is clear that, in these circumstances, the tracing of a median

line between those coasts, by wa y of a provisional step in
processes to be continued by other operations, is the most

judicious manner of proceeding with a view to the eventual
achievement of an equitable result”. TPFFPT

133
134PT RIAA vol. XVIII (1977), p. 116 (para. 249).
TP PT Maritime Delimitation in the Area between Gree nland and Jan Mayen (Denmark v. Norway),
Judgment, ICJ Reports 1993, p. 58 (para. 46).
135
136PT ICJ Reports 1993, p. 66 (para. 64).
TP PT ICJ Reports 1985, p. 47 (para. 62).

1008.51. Similarly, in the second phase of the ar bitration between Eritrea and Yemen, the

Arbitral Tribunal took “as its fundamental point of de parture, that, as between

137
opposite coasts, a median line obtains”. TPF FPThe Tribunal continued: T

“It is a generally accepted view, as is evidenced in both the

writings of commentators and in th e jurisprudence, that between
coasts that are opposite to each ot her the median or equidistance

line normally provides an equitable boundary in accordance with

the requirements of the Convention, and in particular those of its
Articles 74 and 83 which respectively provide for the equitable

delimitation of the EEZ and of the continental shelf between

States with opposite or adjacent coasts […]

The Tribunal has decided, after car eful consideration of all the

cogent and skilful arguments put before them by both Parties,
that the international boundary shall be a single all-purpose

boundary which is a median line and that it should, as far as

practicable, be a median line between the opposite mainland
coastlines. This solution is not only in accord w ith practice and

precedent in the like situations but is also one that is already
138
familiar to both Parties…” TPF FPT

8.52. In the Award in the Case Concerning the Delimitation of Portions of the Offshore

Areas between the Province of Nova Sc otia and the Province of Newfoundland

139
and Labrador, the Tribunal TPF Fnoted that

“[i]t has become normal to begin by considering the equidistance

line and possible adjustments, and to adopt some other method of
140
delimitation only if the circumstances justify it”. TPF FPT

8.53. From this analysis of the international jurisprudence, it is clear that the approach

can now be taken in terms of a pres umption of equidistance, although the

presumption can be displaced in a give n situation on grounds of equity by

reference to the special circumstances of the case.

TP7PT Eritrea-Yemen, Second Stage: Maritime Delimitation , Award of 17 December 1999,

International Legal Materials, vol. 40, p. 983 at p. 998 (para. 83).
TP8PT International Legal Materials, vol. 40, p. 1005 (paras 131-132). T
139
TP PT In this case the Tribunal was required to apply the principles of international law governing
maritime boundary delimitation with such modificati on as the circumstances require, as if the parties
were States subject to the same rights and obligations as the Government of Canada at all relevant times.
140
TP PT Newfoundland and Labrador v. Nova Scotia , Award of the Tribunal in the Second Phase,
Ottawa, 26 March 2002 (available at http://www.boundary-dispute.ca ), para. 2.28.

1018.54. The same international case-law establis hes that equidistan ce (both in the

resulting form of an equidistant line be tween adjacent coast and a median line

between opposite coasts) is normally calc ulated between the mainland coasts of

the respective parties; minor islands or other maritime formations are treated only

as relevant circumstances that might shift the equidistant/median line.

(4) The principle of equity and the method of proportionality

8.55. Paragraph c) of the Additional Agreement refers to:

“c) The principle of equity a nd the method of proportionality, as

they are applied in the practice of states and in the decisions of
international courts regarding the delimitation of continental

shelf and exclusive economic zones”.

This recognises that th e principle underlying Artic les 73 and 84 of the 1982

UNCLOS is that any delimitation must be equitable (i.e. it must “achieve an

equitable solution”), having regard to the circumstances of the case.

8.56. This proposition may be traced back to the Truman Proclamation, TPFFwhich spoke

in terms of delimitation in accordance with “equitable principles”. This approach

was in turn endorsed, togeth er with the primacy of ag reement, by this Court in

the North Sea Continental Shelf cases as the two principles underlying maritime

142
delimitation. TPFFPAs the Court said in 1969:

“delimitation is to be effected by agreement in accordance with
equitable principles, and taki ng account of all the relevant
143
circumstances…”. TPF FPT

8.57. The North Sea Continental Shelf cases were concerned only with the continental

shelf, but the same approach was subsequently taken in relation to the emergent

concept of the exclusive economic zones. Accordingly, refe rring to the term

141
142P(19046) AJIL Supp 45.
TP PT North Sea Continental Shelf (Federal Republic of Germany/Denmark; Federal Republic of
Germany/Netherlands), Judgment, ICJ Reports 1969 , p. 47 (para. 85) (“delimitation must be the object

of agreement between the States concerned; and… such agreement must be arrived at in accordance with
equitable principles”).
TP3PT ICJ Reports 1969, p. 53 (para. 101(C)(1)).

102 “equitable solution” contained in Ar ticles 74(1) and 83(1) of the 1982

UNCLOS, the Court observed in the Jan Mayen case that:

“[t]hat statement of an ‘equitabl e solution’ as the aim of any
delimitation process reflects the requirements of customary law

as regards the delimitation both of continental shelf and of
144
exclusive economic zone” TPF FPT

and similarly, that,

“[t]he aim in each and every situ ation must be to achieve ‘an
145
equitable result’”. TPF FPT

8.58. Further, Paragraph 4(c) of the Additi onal Agreement refers to the “method of

proportionality”, as applied in State practice and international jurisprudence.

8.59. As the Court affirmed in the North Sea Continental Shelf cases, a final factor to

be taken into account in assessing the equitable nature of a delimitation

“is the element of a reasonable degree of proportionality which a

delimitation effected according to equitable principles ought to

bring about between the extent of the continental shelf

appertaining to the States conc erned and the lengths of their
respective coastlines.” TPF FPT

8.60. The Anglo-French Court of Arbitration in 1977 referred to

“an alleged principle of proportionality by reference to lengths of

coastlines” as “a factor to be taken into account when
appreciating the effects of geographical features on the equitable

or inequitable character of delimitation” and that “it is

disproportion rather than any general principle of proportionality
which is the relevant criterion or factor”. TPF FPT

8.61. In the Gulf of Maine case, the Chamber of the Court observed that

144
TP PT Maritime Delimitation in the Area between Gree nland and Jan Mayen (Denmark v. Norway),
Judgment, ICJ Reports 1993, p. 59 (para. 48).
145
TP PT ICJ Reports 1993, p. 62 (para. 54).
TP6PT ICJ Reports 1969, p. 52 (para. 98).
147
TP PT RIAA vol. XVIII (1977), p.3, at p. 115 (para. 246), p. 57 (para. 99), p. 58 (para.101).

103 “a maritime delimitation can …not be established by a direct
division of the area in dispute proportional to the respective

lengths of the coast belonging to th e parties in the relevant area,
but it is equally certa in that a substantia l disproportion to the

lengths of those coasts that resulted from a delimitation effected
on a different basis would const itute a circumstance calling for
148
an appropriate correction”. TPF FPT

8.62. In the case concerning Maritime Delimitation and Territorial Questions between

Qatar and Bahrain (Qatar v. Bahrain) , the Court also examined the

proportionality of the relevant coasts and, in the specific case, found that

“the disparity in length of the co astal fronts of the Parties cannot

be considered such as to necessitate an adjustment of the
equidistance line”. TPFFPT

8.63. The Court drew the same conclusion in the Cameroon v. Nigeria case, when it

”acknowledge[d] … that a substa ntial difference in the lengths

of the parties’ respective coastlin es may be a factor to be taken
into consideration in order to adjust or shift the provisional

delimitation line. The Court note[ d] that in the present case,
which ever coastline of Nigeria is regarded as relevant, the

relevant coastline of Cameroon, …, is not longer that that of
Nigeria. There [was] therefore no reason to shift the equidistance
150
line in favor of Cameroon on this ground.” TPFFPT

8.64. In the Case concerning the Maritime Boundary between Guinea and Guinea

Bissau, as well, the Arbitral Tribunal took into consideration proportionality, as a

circumstance that needed to be examined in order for an equitable result to be

reached. In this context, the internat ional tribunal underscored the fact that

proportionality is not a mathematics equality, but rather a juridical equality. In its

award, the Tribunal added that

“[…] this circumstance must not be exaggerated. The

delimitation […] cannot be effected by simply dividing the

148
TP PT Delimitation of the Maritime Boundary in the Gulf of Maine Area (Canada/ United States of
America), Judgment, ICJ Reports 1984, p. 323 (para. 185).
TP9PT Maritime Delimitation and Territorial Questions between Qatar and Bahrain (Qatar v.

150rain), Judgment, ICJ Reports 2001, p. 114 (para. 243).
TP PT Land and Maritime Boundary between Cameroon and Nigeria (Cameroon v. Nigeria;
Equatorial Guinea intervening), ICJ Reports 2002, judgment of 10 October 2002, para. 301.

104 maritime zones equally between th e two States in proportion to
the lengths of their coastlines. A delimitation is a legal operation.

In order to effect a de limitation, it is certainly necessary to refer
to circumstances which may have physical characteristics, but

these circumstances must nevertheless be based on
considerations of law. Furthermore, the rule of proportionality is

not a mechanical rule based only on figures reflecting the length
of the coastline. It must be us ed in a reasonable way, with due

account being given to other circumstances in the case […].
More precisely, in the present case , the fact of taking the islands

into account results in the coastlines of the two States being
151
considered by the Tribunal as having the same length.” TF FPT

8.65. Although in situations where the relevant coastlines are disproportionate this has

sometimes been taken as a relevant factor requiring adjustment of a provisional

152
equidistance line, TPFFin the practice of international courts and tribunals

proportionality has principally been used as a means of confirming the

equitableness of a line arrived at by ot her means by comparing the ratio of the

areas provisionally allocated to the ratio of the length of the relevant coastlines.

It is thus used principally as a means to conduct a final check on the equitable

nature of a delimitation after giving effect to the other relevant circumstances.

8.66. In this situation, the test appears to be whether the line adopted by other means is

not “disproportionate”, rather than applying any strict requirement that the areas

allocated to each State stand in the ratio of their respective relevant coast lines.

As the Court of Arbitration said in its award in the maritime delimitation phase

of the Yemen/Eritrea case:

“The principle of proportionalit y… is not an independent mode

or principle of delimitation, but rath er a test of the equitableness
of a delimitation arrived at by so me other means. So, as the

Award stated in the Anglo-French Channel case, ‘it is
disproportion rather than any general principle of proportionality
153
which is the relevant criterion or factor’.” TPF FPT

TP1PT ILR vol. 77, p. 988 (para. 120); also RIAA vol. XIX, (1985), part. IV, p. 193 (para. 120).
TP2eS.e.e Maritime Delimitation in the Area between Greenland and Jan Mayen (Denmark v.

Norway), Judgment, ICJ Reports 1993 , pp. 68-69 (paras. 68-69), p. 77 (para. 87) and pp. 79-81 (paras.
90-93).
TP3PT RIAA, Vol. XXII (2001), Part IV, p. 335, at p. 372 (para. 165).

1058.67. This application of the principle of propor tionality is reflected in the practice of

this Court. In the Tunisia/Libya Continental Shelf case, the Court applied

proportionality to compare the ratio of lengt h of the coast lines of the two States

to the maritime areas allocated as a test of the equitableness of the delimitation
154
line.TPF FPT

8.68. The difference between the two potential uses of the length of coastlines was

underlined in the Libya/Malta Continental Shelf case where the Court warned:

“In connection with lengths of co asts, attention should be drawn

to an important distinction … be tween the relevance of coastal
lengths as a pertinent circumstance for a delimitation, and use of
those lengths in assessing ratios of proportionality. The Court

has already examined the role of proportionality in a delimitation
process, and has also referred to the operation, employed in the
Tunisia/Libya case, of assessing the ra tios between lengths of

coasts and areas of continental shelf attributed on the basis of
those coasts. It has been emphasized that this latter operation is

to be employed solely as a verification of the equitableness of the
result arrived at by other means. It is however one thing to
employ proportionality calculations to check a result; it is

another thing to take note, in the course of the delimitation
process, of the existence of a ve ry marked difference in coastal
lengths, and to attribute the appropriate significance to that

coastal relationship, without seek ing to define it in quantitative
terms which are only suited to the ex post assessment of

relationships of coast to area. The two operations are neither
mutually exclusive, nor so closely identified with each other that
the one would necessarily render the other supererogatory.

Consideration of the comparability or otherwise of the coastal
lengths is a part of the proce ss of determining an equitable
boundary on the basis of an initia l median line; the test of a

reasonable degree of proportionali ty, on the other hand, is one
which can be applied to check the equitableness of any line,
155
whatever the method used to arrive at that line. TPF FPT

8.69. Further, the Court commented on the ro le of proportionality in the following

terms:

154
TP PT Continental Shelf (Tunisia/Libyan Arab Jamahiriya), Judgment, ICJ Reports 1982 , p. 91 (para.
131).
TP5PT Continental Shelf (Libyan Arab Jamahiriya/ Malta), Judgment , ICJ Reports 1985 , p. 49 (para.
66).

106 “to use the ratio of coastal lengths as of itself determinative of
the seaward reach and area of co ntinental shelf proper to each

Party, is to go far beyond the use of proportionality as a test for
equity and as a corrective of the unjustifiable difference of
treatment resulting from some method of drawing the boundary
line. If such a use of proportionality were right, it is difficult

indeed to see what room w ould be left for any other
consideration; for it would be at once the principle of entitlement
to continental shelf rights and also the method of putting that

principle into operation. Its w eakness as a basis of argument,
however, is that the use of proportionality as a method in its own
right is wanting of support in th e practice of States, in the public
expression of their views at (i n particular) the Third United

Nations Conferenc156n the Law of The Sea, or in the
jurisprudence” TPF.PT

8.70. From international case-law, it is acco rdingly possible to extract the following

principles:

(1) proportionality or disproportion is in any case assessed on the basis of

the ratio between the coasts relevant to delimitation, taking into

consideration their general direction and ignoring, for considerations of

equity, their sinuosities;

(2) proportionality has never been used as an independent mode or method

of delimitation, but as a relevant circumstance in delimitation, justifying

adjustment of a provisional equidistan ce line; it may also be used as a

test of the equitableness of the result.

(3) when utilising proportiona lity between the ratio of the lengths of the

relevant coasts compared to the ratio of the area allocated to each party
of the area to be delimited in order to assess the equitableness of a given

line, the question is whether the relationship is one of disproportion

between the two ratios, not whether th ey are in any given arithmetical

proportion to one another.

156
TPPT Continental Shelf (Libyan Arab Jamahiriya/ Malta), Judgment, ICJ Reports 1985, p. 45 (para. 58).

107 (5) The principle of non-contestation of territory

8.71. Paragraph 4 d) of the Additional Agreement refers to:

“d) The principle according to which neither of the Contracting
Parties shall contest the sovere ignty of the other Contracting
Party over any part of its territory adjacent to the zone submitted
to delimitation”.

8.72. This principle does not apply to the maritime delimitation as such; however, it
forms an essential part of the contex t and background against which the other

principles were agreed by the Parties in 1997.

8.73. In particular, its presence demonstrates that the criteria laid down in the

Additional Agreement were specifically tailored to the situation of Serpents’

Island, and that they are not a mere general recital of a declaratory character.

8.74. As already observed, Romania does not cont est that Serpents’ Island belongs to

Ukraine, despite the circumstances in which that came to be so. Nor does
Romania contest the sovereignty of Ukrain e over any other parts of its territory,

including its territorial sea.

(6) The principle of taking into account special circumstances

8.75. Paragraph 4 e) of the Additional Agreement refers to:

“e) The principle of taking into consideration the special
circumstances of the zone submitted to delimitation.”

8.76. As already indicated, the recent practi ce of the Court shows that the normal

approach to any delimitation is to take an equidistance or median line as the

starting point and then to adjust it so as to take account of relevant or special
circumstances, whether the delimitation is conducted under general international

law, the 1958 Geneva Continental Shelf Convention, or under the 1982

UNCLOS. A similar approach is recognised through the combination Paragraphs

108 4 b) (equidistance/median line) and 4 e) (special circumstances) of the Additional

Agreement.

8.77. As emphasised by the Court in the Jan Mayen case, the difference between the

“equitable principles/relevant circ umstances” method under customary
international law (as reflected in Articles 74 and 83 UNCLOS), and the situation

under the 1958 Convention, based on the “e quidistance/special circumstances”

approach is slight or non-existent:

“54. … The aim in each and every situation must be to achieve
‘an equitable result’. From this standpoint, the 1958 Convention
requires the investigation of a ny ‘special circumstances’; the
customary law based upon equitable principles on the other hand
requires the investigation of ‘relevant circumstances’.

55. The concept of ‘special circ umstances’ was discussed at

length at the First United Nations Conference on the Law of the
Sea, held in 1958. It was included both in the Geneva
Convention of 29 April 1958 on the Territorial Sea and the
Contiguous Zone (Art. 12) and in the Geneva Convention of 29
April 1958 on the Continental Shelf (Art. 6, paras. 1 and 2). It
was and remains linked to th e equidistance method there
contemplated, so much so ind eed that in 19 77 the Court of

Arbitration in the case concerning the delimitation of the
continental shelf (United Kingdom/F rance) was able to refer to
the existence of a rule combining ‘equidistance-special
circumstances’ (see paragraph 46 above ). It is thus apparent that
special circumstances are those circumstances which might
modify the result produced by an unqualified application of the
equidistance principle. General international law, as it has

developed through the case-law of the Court and arbitral
jurisprudence, and through the work of the Third United Nations
Conference on the Law of the Sea, has employed the concept of
‘relevant circumstances’. This concept can be described as a fact
necessary to be taken into account in the delimitation process.

56. Although it is a matter of categories which are different
in origin and in name, there is inevitably a tendency towards

assimilation between the special circumstances of Article 6 of
the 1958 Convention and the relevant circumstances under
customary law, and this if only because they both are intended to
enable the achievement of an e quitable result. This must be
especially true in the case of oppos ite coasts where, as has been
seen, the tendency of customary la w, like the terms of Article 6,
has been to postulate the median line as leading prima facie to an

109 equitable result. It cannot be surprising if an equidistance-special
circumstances rule produces much the same result as an

equitable principles-relevant circ umstances rule in the case of
opposite coasts, whether in th e case of a delimitation of

continental shelf, of fishery z one, or of an all-purpose single
boundary. There is a further finding of the Anglo-French Court

of Arbitration to this effect when, after referring to the rule in
Article 6, and to the rule of customary law based upon equitable

principles and ‘relevant’ circum stances, it said that the double
basis on which the parties had put their case,

‘confirms the Court’s conclusi on that the different ways

in which the requirements of “equitable principles” or the
effects of “special circum stances” are put reflect

differences of appro157 and terminology rather than of
substance’…” TPFFPT

(a) The provisional equidistance/median line and special circumstances

8.78. The starting element is accordingly the equidistance or median line drawn from

the basepoints which are relevant fo r the delimitation of the zone(s) in

question. TPFFPAs observed by the Court in the Cameroon/Nigeria case:

“The Court has on various occasions made it clear what the
applicable criteria, principles and rules of delimitation are when

a line covering several zones of co incident jurisdictions is to be
determined. They are expressed in the so-called equitable

principles/relevant circumstances method. This method, which
is very similar to the equidistan ce/special circumstances method

applicable in delimitation of the territorial sea, involves first
drawing an equidistance line, then considering whether there are

factors calling for the adjustment or shifting of that line in order
to achieve an equitable result.” TPF FPT

TP7PT Maritime Delimitation in the Area between Gr eenland and Jan Mayen (Denmark v. Norway) ,
Judgment, ICJ Reports 1993 , pp. 62-63 (paras. 54-56) citing the Anglo-French arbitration, RIAA, Vol.

XVIII, p. XX, at p. 75, para. 148; (1977) I.L.R., vol. 54, p. 84; International Legal Materials, vol. 18, p.
435.
TP8PT Thus where a small island, islet, rock or ot her feature cannot constitute a basepoint for the

delimitation or does not generate the maritime z one in question, it is ignored in constructing the
equidistance line.
TP9PT Land and Maritime Boundary between Cameroon and Nigeria (Cameroon v. Nigeria;
Equatorial Guinea intervening), ICJ Reports 2002, judgment of 10 October 2002, para. 288.

1108.79. The Court has previously adopted this approach in a number of cases; thus in the

Jan Mayen case, a case of opposite coasts, ha ving concluded that “both for the

continental shelf and for the fishery zones in this case, it is proper to begin the
160
process of delimitation by a median line provisionally drawn”, TPFFPthe Court went

on to consider the factors which might require an adjustment to that provisional
161
line. TPF FPT

8.80. Similarly, in the Qatar/Bahrain case, having referred to the approach adopted in

the Jan Mayen case, the Court followed the same course, ruling that:

“For the delimitation of the maritime zones beyond the 12-mile

zone it will first provisionally draw an equidistance line and then
consider whether there are circumstances which must lead to an
162
adjustment of that line.” TPF FPT

8.81. However, as emphasised by the Court in the Jan Mayen case, in the context of

delimitations between opposite States, equidistance has a particular significance.

In that case, the 1958 Continental Shelf Convention was applicable; neither party

had ratified 1982 UNCLOS, a lthough both had signed it, and in any case it had

not at that point acquired the requisite number of ratifications in order to enter

into force. However, the Court, having referred to the 1977 decision of the

Anglo-French Court of Arbitration, observed that:

“If the equidistance-special ci rcumstances rule of the 1958
Convention is, in the light of th is 1977 Decision, to be regarded

as expressing a general norm ba sed on equitable principles, it

must be difficult to find any material difference--at any rate in
regard to delimitation between opposite coasts-- between the

effect of Article 6 and the effect of the customary rule which also
163
requires a delimitation based on equitable principles.” TPF FPT

160
TP PT Maritime Delimitation in the Area between Gree nland and Jan Mayen (Denmark v. Norway),
Judgment, ICJ Reports 1993 , p. 62 (para. 53). For the Court’s discussion of the appropriateness of
starting from a provisional median line, see ICJ Reports 1993, pp. 59-62, (paras. 49-53), referring to the

approach adopted by the Court in the Libya/Malta (Continental Shelf (Libyan Arab Jamahiriya/Malta),
ICJ Reports 1984, p. 13) and Gulf of Maine (Delimitation of the Maritime Boundary in the Gulf of Maine
Area, ICJ Reports 1984, p. 246) cases.
161
TP PT For the Court’s discussion, see Maritime Delimitation in the Area between Greenland and Jan
Mayen (Denmark v. Norway), ICJ Reports 1993, pp. 64-77 (paras. 59-86).
162
TP PT Maritime Delimitation and Territorial Questions between Qatar and Bahrain (Qatar v.
Bahrain), Judgment, ICJ Reports 2001, p. 111 (para. 230).
TP3PT ICJ Reports 1993, p. 58 (para. 46)

111 The Court went on to observe, again re ferring to the deci sion of the Anglo-

French Court of Arbitration, that:

“Although it is a matter of categories which are different in

origin and in name, there is inevitably a tendency towards

assimilation between the special circumstances of Article 6 of
the 1958 Convention and the relevant circumstances under

customary law, and this is only because they both are intended to
enable the achievement of an e quitable result. This must be

especially true in the case of oppos ite coasts where, as has been

seen, the tendency of customary la w, like the terms of Article 6,
has been to postulate the median line as leading prima facie to an
164
equitable result.” TPFFPT

Finally, the Court observed that:

“Prima facie, a median line delimitation between opposite coasts

results in general [is] an equitable solution, particularly if the
coasts in question are nearly parallel. When, as in the present

case, delimitation is required between opposite coasts which are
insufficiently far apart for both to enjoy the full 200-mile

extension of continental shelf and other rights over maritime

spaces recognized by international law, the median line will be
equidistant also from the two 200-mile limits, and may prima

facie be regarded as effecting an equitable division of the
overlapping area.” TPF5FPT

8.82. This approach was followed by the Eritrea-Yemen Arbitral Tribunal in its Award

in the Second Phase of the arbitration, were the Tribunal took “as its fundamental

166
point of departure, that, as between opposite coasts, a median line obtains”, TPF FPT

while noting the difference between the situ ation in confined waters and that of

167
the “great oceans”. TPF FIn that case, UNCLOS was not directly applicable,

although the parties in the Arbitration Agreement had stipulated that the Tribunal

was to apply UNCLOS “and any other pertinent factor”.

164
TP PT ICJ Reports 1993, p. 62 (para. 56)
TP5PT ICJ Reports 1993, p. 66 (para. 64)
TP6PEritrea-Yemen, Second Stage: Maritime Delimitation , Award of 17 December 1999,

International Legal Materials, vol. 40, p. 998 (para. 83). See also RIAA, Vol. XXII (2001), Part IV, p. 354
(para. 83).
TP7PT International Legal Materials, vol. 40, p. 446 (para. 85). RIAA, Vol. XXII (2001), Part IV, p. 355

(para. 85).

1128.83. Given the equivalence of the equitabl e principles-relevant circumstances

approach under customary international law (as embodied in UNCLOS) and the

equidistance-special circumstances approach (as applicable under the Additional
Agreement), it does not seem to matter which approach the Court actually

applies.

8.84. In the end, the fundamental principle is that the delimitation should produce an

equitable result, and that an equitable result is produced by an

equidistance/median line, adjusted for relevant/special circumstances.

8.85. Of the factors which have been considered to be relevant, the primary one is the

geophysical situation of the area to be delimited, i.e. its configuration. This
includes the projection of the relevant co asts, and the connected principle that,

where possible, zones should be delimited so as to avoid any cut-off, as well as

the eventual disproportion between the relevant coastal lengths or the presence of
islands, islets or rocks in the delimitation area.

(b) Islands as a special circumstance

8.86. The role of islands as a special circumstance in maritime delimitation can be seen

as merely part of the wider requireme nt to take account of the geographical
context in order to reach an equitable solution. Howeve r, islands have a special

significance in maritime delimitation.

8.87. A review of delimitation awards and of State practice reveals that, quite

independently of whether they count as “rocks” within the meaning of Article

121(3) of the 1982 UNCLOS, and therefor e have no continental shelf or
exclusive economic zone, small islands ha ve almost always been given very

reduced or no effect in the delimitati on of the continental shelf, exclusive

economic zone or other maritime zones due to the inequitable effect they would

produce. Often they have been limited only to a maximum 12 nm territorial sea
enclave. In a number of cases they have been ignored altogether.

113(i) Judicial and arbitral decisions

8.88. On numerous occasions, in ternational courts and tri bunals have stated that

limited or no effect should be given to islands that have th e potential to distort

the delimitation line and thus to preclude an equitable overall result.

8.89. In the North Sea Continental Shelf case, in referring to delimitation between

States having opposite coasts, the Court observed that

“The continental shelf area off, and dividing, opposite States, can

be claimed by each of them to be a natural prolongation of its
territory. These prolongations meet and overlap, and can

therefore only be delimited by me ans of a median line; and,

ignoring the presence of isle ts, rocks and minor coastal
projections, the disproportionally distorting effect of which can

be eliminated by other means, such a line must effect an equal
division of the particular area involved.” TPF FPT

The Court accordingly made clear even prior to the inclusion of Article 121(3) in

the 1982 UNCLOS, that, in performing the delimitation between opposite States,

small insular formations (“islets” and “rocks”), as well as “minor coastal

projections” were not to be taken in to account if they would have a

disproportionate effect, and accordingly would preclude an equitable solution.

8.90. In the case concerning Delimitation of the Continental Shelf between the United

Kingdom and France, the Tribunal found that the Channel Islands could not

generate full maritime zones (as advocated by the United Kingdom), but that

their position meant that they were to be treated as a “special circumstance” for

the purposes of the delimitation. TPFFPThe Islands were not given any effect in

170
drawing the median line as between th e French and English mainland coasts, TPF FPT

and were given only 12 nautical mile encl aves of continental shelf to their west

and north, separated from the remainder of the continental shelf awarded to the

TP8PT North Sea Continental Shelf (Federal Republic of Germany/Denmark; Federal Republic of

Germany/Netherlands), Judgment, ICJ Reports 1969, p. 36 (para. 57).
TP9PT Court of Arbitration, Award of 30 June 1977, RIAA, Vol. XVIII (1977), p. 93 (para. 196);
(1977) I.L.R., vol. 54, p. 101; International Legal Materials, vol. 18, pp. 443-444.
170
TP PT RIAA, Vol. XVIII, (1977), p. 94-95 (para. 201); (1977) I.L.R., vol. 54, p. 102; International
Legal Materials, vol. 18, p. 444.

114 171
United Kingdom by a region of French continental shelf. TPF FPThis solution was

reached despite the fact that the Channel Islands possess

“a considerable population and a substantial ag ricultural and

commercial economy, they are clea rly territorial and political

units which have their own separa te existence, and which are of

a certain importance in their own right separately from the
United Kingdom.” TPF FPT

8.91. In the same case, the Scilly Islands, which lie roughly 21 nm off the British

173
mainland and have a significant population, TPF Fwere also treated as constituting a

“special circumstance”, on the basis that if given full effect they would have

deflected the equidistance line consider ably further south in an inequitable

manner and producing disproportionate effects. TPF FAccordingly, they were given

175
only half-effect in drawing the median equidistance line. TPF FPT

8.92. In the arbitral decision in the case concerning the Boundary Dispute between

Dubai and Sharjah , the Tribunal considered it equi table to disregard, for the

purposes of delimitation of the continenta l shelf, the island of Abu Musa (which

is a large maritime feature, having a significant population and economic

importance). The Tribunal indicated that

“[t]he entitlement of an island to a continental shelf is an
inherent right, deriving from the physical fact of the existence of

the shelf as a prolongation of the landmass…

… the island of Abu Musa lies on a common shelf which is

geologically as much a prolongatio n of the land-mass of Dubai

as that of Sharjah.

The question, however, necessarily arises as to whether an
inherent entitlement of the island of Abu Musa to a share of this

TP1PT RIAA, Vol. XVIII, (1977), p. 95 (para. 202); (1977) I.L.R., vol. 54, pp. 102-103; International

Legal Materials, vol. 18, pp. 444-445
TP2PT RIAA, Vol. XVIII, (1977), p. 88 (para. 184); (1977) I.L.R., vol. 54, p. 96; International Legal

Materials, vol. 18, p. 441.
TP3PT RIAA, Vol. XVIII, (1977), p. 107 (para. 227); (1977) I.L.R., vol. 54, pp. 114-115; International

174al Materials, vol. 18, pp. 450-451.
TP PT RIAA, Vol. XVIII, (1977), p. 113-115 (paras. 243-245); (1977) I.L.R., vol. 54, pp. 121-122;
International Legal Materials, vol. 18, p. 454.
175
TP PT RIAA, Vol. XVIII, (1977), p. 117 (para. 251); (1977) I.L.R., vol. 54, p. 124; International Legal
Materials, vol. 18, p. 455.

115 common shelf may be displaced by a consideration of
exceptional geographical circumstances…

Certain islands are clearly capable of giving rise to ‘special
circumstances’ and thus to the invocation of equitable

considerations where their exis tence would otherwise produce a
distortion of the equidistance line or an exaggerated effect which

would be inequitable. It ma y thus be necessary, in the
delimitation of a boundary, to abate the effect of an island which

forms an incidental special feature.

[The Court] has come to the conc lusion […] that to allow to the

island of Abu Musa any entitlement to an area of the continental
shelf of the Gulf beyond the extent of its belt of territorial sea

would indeed produce a distorting effect upon neighboring shelf
areas. The application of equitabl e principles here, so as to

achieve a limitation that is a function or reflection of the
geographical and other relevant ci rcumstances of the area, must

lead to no effect being accorded to the islands of Abu Musa for
the purpose of plotting median or equidistance shelf boundary

between it and the neighboring shelf areas.

...

To give no effect to the continental shelf entitlement to the island

of Abu Musa would preserve th e equities of the geographical
situation and would be consistent for example, with comparable

regional practice as applied to the islands of Al-‘Arabiyah and
Farsi in the Saudi Arabian–Ira nian Agreement of January 1969,

and Dayinah in the Abu Dahbi-Qatar Agreement of March 1969,
where the continental shelf rights of islands were limited as to

coincide with their respective territorial waters, but not used as
basepoints for the purpose of constructing median or

equidistance boundaries in respec t of the continental shelves
between opposite or adjacent states.” TPFFPT

8.93. In the Tunisia/Libya Continental Shelf case, the International Court of Justice
177
gave only half-effect to the Kerkennah Islands, TPF Fdespite their considerable size

(180 km P )TPF, while the presence of the large island of Jerba, located close to the

176
177PT Dubai-Sharjah Border Arbitration, (1981) I.L.R., vol. 91, pp 675-677.
TP PT Continental Shelf (Tunisia/Libyan Arab Jamahiriya), ICJ Reports 1982 , pp. 88-89 (paras. 128-
129).
TP8PT Ibid., p. 89 (para.128).

116 mainland, was ignored even as a special circumstance given the other relevant

179
circumstances present. TPF FPT

8.94. In the Gulf of Maine case, the Chamber, having quoted the passage from the

North Sea Continental Shelf cases cited above at para. 8.89, pointed out

“the potential disadvantages inherent in any method which takes
tiny islands, uninhabited rocks or low-tide elevations, sometimes

lying at a considerable distance fr om terra firma, as basepoints

for the drawing of a line intended to effect an equal division of a
given area. If any of these ge ographical features posses some

degree of importance, there is nothing to prevent their
subsequently being whatever limited corrective effect may

equitably be assigned them, but th at is an altogether different

operation from making a series of such minor features the very
basis for the determination of the dividing line”. TPF FPT

The Chamber considered appropriate that only half effect should be given to Seal

Island, although it is about 3 miles long, between 1-1½ miles wide and, as the

Chamber underlined, is inhabited throughout the year.

8.95. In the St Pierre et Miquelon case, the Tribunal awarded the French islands (of

substantial size and with a long-sta nding resident population) only a limited

extension of the enclave beyond the territorial sea, and then only in the form of a

narrow corridor pointing in a direction which did not cut off the projection of any

relevant Canadian (i.e. Newfoundland) coast. TPFFPT

8.96. In the Jan Mayen case, Denmark argued on a number of bases (including that it

could not sustain human habitation or an economic life of its own) that Jan

Mayen should be given no effect as agai nst Greenland’s continental shelf in the
182
delimitation. TPF FPWhile not accepting the contention based on Jan Mayen’s

TP9PT ICJ Reports 1982, p. 64 (para. 79) and p. 85 (para. 120).
180
TP PT Delimitation of the Maritime Boundary in the Gulf of Maine Area , ICJ Reports 1984, pp. 329-
330 (para. 201)
181
TPAPCrbitrrattion, Delimitation of Maritime Areas between Canada and France (St. Pierre et
Miquelon), Award of 10 June 1992, International Legal Materials, vol. 31, p. 1145.
TP2PT Maritime Delimitation in the Area between Gree nland and Jan Mayen (Denmark v. Norway),

Judgment, ICJ Reports 1993, p. 64-65 (para. 60) for the Court’s summary of these arguments.

117 inability to sustain human habitation or an economic life of its own, TPF Fthe Court

nevertheless found it necessary to adjust the provisional median line, moving it

closer to the coast of Jan Mayen on the basis of the disproportionality between

the respective lengths of the coast lines of Jan Mayen and Greenland. TPF FPT

8.97. In the second phase of the Eritrea/Yemen arbitration, relating to the maritime

boundary, the Arbitral Tribunal observed, in its discussion of certain small

uninhabitable islands belonging to Yemen in the Red Sea (the Jabal al-Tayr and

the Zubayr group) :

“…this requirement of an equita ble result directly raises the

question of the effect to be allowed to mid-sea islands, which, by
virtue of their mid-sea position and if allowed full effect, can

obviously produce a disproportiona te effect – or indeed a

reasonable effect – all depending on their size, importance and
185
like considerations in the general geographical context…” TPF FPT

The Tribunal continued:

“In its assessment of the equities of the ‘effect’ to be given to

these northern islands and isle ts, the Tribunal decided not to

accept the Yemen plea that they allo wed a full, or at least some,

effect on the median line. This decision was confirmed by the
result that, in any event, thes e mid-sea islands would enjoy an

entire territorial sea of the normal 12 miles – even on their
186
western side…” TPF FPT

The Tribunal accordingly decided to draw a median equidistance line in the

northern sector on the following basis:

- on the one hand utilizing baselines on the Yemeni coast (including the

fringing islands, which the Tribunal found to be an integral part of the

187
Yemeni coast), TPF Fignoring Jabal al-Tayr a nd the Zubayr group whose

188
effect, it was found, would have been disproportionate; TPF FPT

183
TP PT ICJ Reports 1993, pp. 73-74 (para. 80).
TP4PT ICJ Reports 1993, p. 69 (para. 69); see also at p. 77 (para. 87) and pp. 79-81 (paras. 90-93).
185
TP PTEritrea-Yemen, Second Stage: Maritime Delimitation , Award of 17 December 1999,
International Legal Materials, vol. 40, p. 1003 (para. 117).
186
TP PT International Legal Materials, vol. 40, p. 1004 (para. 119).
TP7PT International Legal Materials, vol. 40, p. 1008 (paras. 149-151).
188
TP PT International Legal Materials, vol. 40, p. 1008 (paras. 147-148).

118 - on the other hand, baselines drawn on the outer islands in the Eritrean

Dahlak group (ignoring the Negileh Rock), and the Eritrean mainland

coast. TPF FPT

The equidistance line drawn on this basis continued southwards, until the

presence of the Yemeni Jabal Zuqar and Hanish group and their territorial seas

compelled a diversion westwards. TPFFPT

8.98. In Qatar/Bahrain, the Court disregarded the mariti me feature of Qit’at Jaradah

when constructing the delimitation line between the territorial seas of the two

countries. The Court observed that

“…Qit’at Jaradah is a very small island, uninhabited and without

any vegetation. This tiny island, which – as the Court has
determined … – comes under Bahrai ni sovereignty, is situated

about midway between the main island of Bahrain and the Qatar
peninsula. Consequently, if its low-water line were to be used for

determining a basepoint in the c onstruction of the equidistance
line, and this line taken as the delimitation line, a

disproportionate effect would be given to an insignificant
maritime feature…

In similar situations the Court has sometimes been led to

eliminate the disproportionate effect of small islands… The
Court thus finds that there is a special circumstance in this case

warranting the choice of a delimitation line passing immediately
to the east of Qit'at Jaradah.” TPFFPT

8.99. The Court also chose to ignore the isle t of Fasht al Jarim when tracing the

delimitation line between th e continental shelves and exclusive economic zones

of Qatar and Bahrain. The Court found that

“… [t]he only noticeable element is Fasht al Jarim as a remote

projection of Bahrain’s coastline in the Gulf area, which, if given
full effect, would ‘distort the boundary and have disproportionate

189
190PT International Legal Materials, vol. 40, pp. 1007-1008, (paras 139-146)
TP PT International Legal Materials, vol. 40, p. 1010 (para. 160-162)
TP1PT Maritime Delimitation and Territorial Questi ons Between Qatar and Bahrain (Qatar v.

Bahrain), Judgment, ICJ Reports 2001 , pp. 104 and 109 (para. 219), referring to the passages from the
North Sea Continental Shelf case and the Libya/Malta Continental Shelf case quote above at paras. 8.89
and 8.40 respectively.

119 effects’ (Continental Shelf Ca se (France/United Kingdom)

United Nations, Reports of Intern ational Arbitral Awards, Vol
XVIII, p 114, paragraph 244)’”.

In the view of the Court, such a distortion, due to a maritime

feature located well out to sea and of which at most a minute part
is above water at high tide, would not lead to an equitable

solution which would be in accord with all other relevant factors
referred to above. In the circumstances of the case,

considerations of equity require that Fasht al Jarim should have

no effect in determining the boundary line in the northern sector.

The Court accordingly decides that the single maritime boundary
in this sector shall be formed in the first place by a line which,

from a point situated to the north-west of Fasht ad Dibal, shall
meet the equidistance line as adjusted to take account of the
192
absence of effect given to Fasht al Jarim.” TPFFPT

8.100. In the Nova Scotia/Newfoundland arbitration, the domestic Canadian Tribunal

applying international law in order to delimit the maritime boundary between

two of the constituent provinces of Cana da, carefully analysed the effect that

should have been given to Sable Isla nd, a sand island of substantial size,

inhabited only by federal officials engaged as lighthouse keepers or as scientists

or engaged in conservation and conserva tors. The Tribunal began by noting

that:

“Sable Island is an isolate d, sandy, crescent-shaped island

oriented in an east-west direc tion, 22 nm long and less than one

nautical mile wide, situated 120 nm south of Scatarie Island and
about 88 nm from the mainland of Nova Scotia. It has an area of
193
33 square kilometers…” TPFFPT

The Tribunal then concluded that alt hough Sable Island is c onsiderably more

substantial than Fasht al Jarim (at issue in the Qatar/Bahrain case), nevertheless

“in the context of the present delimitation, it is clearly a ‘speci al’ or ‘relevant’

circumstance which needs to be taken into account”. TPFFPT

192
TP PT ICJ Reports 2001, pp. 114-115 (paras. 247-249).
TP3PT Newfoundland and Labrador v. Nova Scotia , Award of the Tribunal in the Second Phase,

194awa, 26 March 2002 (available at http://www.boundary-dispute.ca ), para. 4.32
TP PT Ibid., para. 4.36

1208.101. Later in the Award, the Tribunal addressed the question of the effect to be given

to Sable Island “[h]aving re gard to its remote location and the very substantial

disproportionate effect this small, unpopulated island would have on the

delimitation if it were given full effect”. TPF FPThe Tribunal ini tially considered

whether an equitable solu tion would be achieved by giving Sable Island only

196
half effect in adjusting the provisional equidistance line. TPF FPT

8.102. However, the Tribunal eventually took the view that, although giving only half-

effect to Sable Island s ubstantially reduced the cut- off effect on the southwest

coast of Newfoundland, the effect given to Sable Island should be still further

reduced. The Tribunal continued:

“Moreover, the Tribunal is of the view that a further adjustment

of the equidistance line (beyond gi ving only half effect to Sable

Island) would accommodate in a reasonable way the disparity in
the lengths of the Parties’ coasts (as determined by the Tribunal)

in both the inner and outer ar eas. Accordingly, the Tribunal

further adjusts the equidistance line by giving no effect whatever
197
to Sable Island.” TPF F(emphasis added).

8.103. Finally, it may be noted that in the Libya/Malta case, the Court, in addition to

198
ignoring the island of Filfla for the purposes of drawing baselines, TPF FPfurther did

not give full effect to Malta, an inde pendent State, vis-à- vis Libya, a solution

199
stemming from the striking difference in the lengths of their relevant shores. TPF FPT

The Court had earlier suggested that

“it might well be that the sea bound aries in this region would be

different if the islands of Malta did not constitute an independent
State, but formed a part of the territory of one of the surrounding

countries…” TPF FPT

195
TP PT Ibid., para. 5.13
TP6PT Ibid.
197
TP PT Ibid, para. 5.15
TP8PT Continental Shelf (Libyan Arab Jamahiriya/Malta) , Judgment, ICJ Reports 1985 , p. 20 (para.

15), quoted above in para. 8.40.
199
200PT ICJ Reports 1985, pp. 51-52 (paras. 71-73).
TP PT ICJ Reports 1985, p. 42 (para. 53).

121 thereby seeming to imply that if Malta had been a dependent territory, its

201
entitlement to maritime areas would have been further reduced. TPF FPT

(ii) Sta ptreactice

8.104. In addition to the decisions of courts a nd tribunals, there is a clear pattern in

international practice to either disregard sm all or isolated islands entirely, or to

award only limited effect to certain island s because of their lack of importance

and because of their potential to distort an otherwise equitable line.

8.105. When a method other than equidistance is used (for example, the parallel of

latitude, or the perpendicular to the gene ral direction of the coast) small islands

202
are usually totally ignored TPF PT When the equidistance method is used, the

predominant tendency is to give no or litt le effect to such maritime formation.

Various examples can be invoked in this respect.

8.106. In the Continental Shelf Agreement be tween Iran and Qatar of 20 September

203
1969, various small islands were ignored when drawing the median line. TPF FPT

8.107. In the Agreement between the Government of the Republic of Indonesia and the

Government of Malaysia Relating to the Delimitation of the Continental shelf

204
between the Two Countries of 1969, TPF Fthe boundary between the adjacent coast

of Borneo/Kalimantan (Indonesia) and Sara wak (Malaysia) gives less than full

effect to various Indonesian islands.

201
Tdisheufs.sion, ICJ Reports 1985, pp. 51-52 (para. 72), discussing the northern-most course
the boundary could possibly take on the hypothetical basis of the situation if Malta belonged to Italy.
202
TP PT See International Maritime Boundaries, vol I, edited by Jonathan I. Charney and Lewis M.
Alexander, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 1996, p. 134
203
TP PT Iran/Qatar Agreement concerning the Boundary Line dividing the Continental Shelf between
Iran and Qatar, Doha, 20 September 1969; 787 United Nations Treaty Series 172. See also International
Maritime Boundaries, vol II, edited by Jonathan I. Charney and Lewis M. Alexander, Martinus Nijhoff

Publishers, 1996, p. 1513.
TP4PT Kuala Lumpur, 27 October 1969; see US Department of State, “Indonesia-Malaysia Continental

Shelf Boundary”, Limits in th e Seas, No. 1 (1970). See also International Maritime Boundaries, vol I,
edited by Jonathan I. Charney and Lewis M. Alexander, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 1996, p. 1021.

1228.108. In the 1974 agreement between India and Sri Lanka, the island of Kachchativu

appears to not have affected the delimitation line. TPF FPT

8.109. In the Agreement between Greece and Italy delimiting their respective

continental shelf areas of 1977, various e ffects were given to Greek islands in

the Channel of Otranto and the Strofades group, according to their size and their

206
population. TPF FPT

8.110. In the Agreement between Italy and Y ugoslavia concerning the Delimitation of

207
the Continental Shelf between the Two Countries of 1968 TPF PTthe Yugoslav

islands of Jabuka, Pelagruz and Kajola (Galijula) were given zero effect, as was

the small Italian island of Pianosa. The islands of Pelagruz and Kajola, lying

almost exactly on the median line so drawn were however given 12 nautical

mile enclaves.

8.111. The Agreement between the Government of the Italian Republic and the

Government of the Tunisian Republic Relating to the Delimitation of the

Continental Shelf between the Two Countries of 1971, TPF Fdisregarded the Italian

islands Pantelleria, Linosa, Lampedus a, and Lampione for the purposes of

drawing an equidistance median line. 12 nautical mile territorial sea/contiguous

zones were then given to each of the It alian islands, and an further 1 nautical

mile zone of continental shelf outside t hose 12 nautical mile arcs were given to

Pantelleria, Lionosa and Lampedusa.

205
TP PT Sri Lanka/India Agreement on the maritime bounda ry between the two countries in the Gulf of
Mannar and the Bay of Bengal and related matters, New Delhi, 23 March 1976, 1049 United Nations

Treaty Series 43. See also International Maritime Boundaries, vol II, edited by Jonathan I. Charney and
Lewis M. Alexander, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 1996, p. 1412.
TP6PT Agreement between the Hellenic Republic and the Italian Republic on the delimitation of the

respective continental shelf areas of the two States, Athens, 24 May 1977, 1275 United Nations Treaty
Series 427. See also International Maritime Boundaries, vol II, edited by Jonathan I. Charney and Lewis
M. Alexander, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 1996, p. 1594.
207
TP PT Rome, 8 January 1968; see US Department of State, “Italy – Yugoslavia; Continental Shelf
Boundary”, Limits in the Seas, No. 9 (1970). See also International Maritime Boundaries, vol II, edited

by Jonathan I. Charney and Lewis M. Alexander, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 1996, p. 1630.
TP8PT Tunis, 20 August 1971; 1129 United Nations Treaty Series 255; see also US Department of
State, “Italy – Tunisia; Contin ental Shelf Boundary”, Limits in the Seas, No. 89 (1980). See also

International Maritime Boundaries, vol II, edited by Jonathan I. Charney and Lewis M. Alexander,
Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 1996, p.1616-1617.

1238.112. Less than full effect was also given to the Swedish islands of Götland and

Gotska Sandön, which have roughly 55 000 inhabitants, in the 1988 Agreement

between Sweden and the USSR in relation to the continental shelf and exclusive

209
economic zone/fishing boundary between the two States. TPF FPT

8.113. Half effect was given to islands in the case of the Agreement concerning the

sovereignty over the Islands of Al-‘Arab iyah and Farsi and the delimitation of

the boundary line separating the submar ine areas between the Kingdom of

210
Saudi Arabia and Iran (Kharg Island). TPFFPT

8.114. The Agreement between Qatar and Abu Dhabi of 1969 is an example of an

agreement where the equidistant line between the two ad jacent coasts is

diverted around a 3-mile arc surroundi ng the island of Daiyina, which was

otherwise given no effect at all. TPF FPT

8.115. The Offshore Boundary Agreement between Iran and Dubai of 1974 provided

for only a slight deviation of the boundary otherwise drawn on the basis of a 12

212
nautical mile arc around the Iranian island of Sirri. TPF FPT

8.116. The Agreement between Finland and Swed en on delimitation in the Åland Sea

and northern Baltic Sea of 1994 TPF Fignores as basepoint s the Bogskär Islands,

which consists of two uninhabited rocks with a total area of 4-5 km².

209
TP PT Agreement between the Government of the Kingdom of Sweden and the Government of the
Union of Soviet Socialist Republics on the Delimitation of the Continental Shelf and of the Swedish
Fishing Zone and the Soviet Economic Zone in the Baltic Sea, Moscow, 18 April 1988; 1557 United

Nations Treaty Series 283. See also International Maritime Boundaries, vol II, edited by Jonathan I.
Charney and Lewis M. Alexander, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 1996, p. 2061-2062.
210
TP PT Tehran, 24 October 1968, 696 United Nations Treaty Series 212. See also International
Maritime Boundaries, vol II, edited by Jonathan I. Charney and Lewis M. Alexander, Martinus Nijhoff
Publishers, 1996, p. 1521.
211
TP PT Qatar/Abu Dhabi (United Arab Emirates), Agreement on settlement of maritime boundary lines
and sovereign rights over islands, 20 March 1969: see US Department of State, “Qatar – United Arab

Emirates (Abu Dhabi); Continental Shelf Boundary” , Limits in the Seas, No . 18 (1970). See also
International Maritime Boundaries, vol II, edited by Jonathan I. Charney and Lewis M. Alexander,

212tinus Nijhoff Publishers, 1996, p. 1543.
TP PT Tehran, 31 August 1974; see US Department of State, “Iran – United Arab Emirates (Dubai);
Continental Shelf Boundary”, Limits in the Seas, No. 63 (1975). See also International Maritime

Boundaries, vol II, edited by Jonathan I. Charney and Lewis M. Alexander, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers,
1996, p. 1535.

1248.117. In the Agreement between the Domi nican Republic and the United Kingdom

concerning the delimitation of the ma ritime boundary between the Dominican

Republic and the Turks and Caicos Islands, TPF Fthe boundary agreed runs to the

north of the equidistant lin e for its whole length, by up to as much as 7 miles,

favouring thus the Dominican Republic.

8.118. The Agreement between the People’s Republic of China and the Socialist

Republic of Viet Nam on the Delimitation of the Territorial Sea, the Exclusive

Economic Zone and Continental Shelf in Beibu Bay/Gulf of Tonkin of 25

December 2000 gives only limited (25 per cent) effect to the Vietnamese island

of Bach Long Vi, which is located in th e centre of the Gulf of Tonkin, slightly

closer to Viet Nam, so that in addition to territorial waters of 12 nm it also has a

3 nautical mile zone of exclusive economic zone and continental shelf.

Similarly, the small island of Con Co wh ich lies close to the shore of Viet Nam

was given only 50 per cent effect in drawing the boundary between the two

215
States at the closing line of the Gulf of Tonkin TPF FPT

8.119. The island of Bach Long Vi faces the Chinese island of Hainan, has a total area

of 2.5 km², is permanently inhabited, and has a flourishing economic life of its

own. It is situated in the centre of th e Tonkin Gulf (about 110 km off the coast

of Viet Nam and some 130 km off the coast of the Chinese island of Hainan). TPF FPT

TP3PT Agreement between the Republic of Finland and the Kingdom of Sweden on the delimitation of

the boundary between the continental shelf and fishery zone of Finland and the economic zone of
Sweden in the Åland Sea and the Northern Baltic Sea, Stockholm, 2 June 1994; 1887 United Nations
Treaty Series 238. See also International Maritime Boundaries, vol III , edited by Jonathan I. Charney

214 Lewis M. Alexander, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 1996, p. 2543-2544.
TP PT Agreement between the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern
Ireland and the Government of the Dominican Republic concerning the delimitation of the Maritime

Boundary between the Domi nican Republic and the Turks and Caicos Islands, 2 August 1996 - See
International Maritime Boundaries, vol III, edited by Jonathan I. Charney and Lewis M. Alexander,
Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 1996, p. 2239.
215
TP PT See the declaration of the Vietnamese minist er of foreign affairs, Mr. Nguyen Dy Nien ,
published by the Vietnamese newspaper Nhân Dân on 1 July 2004 (Annex RM 32) . See also Zou
Keyuan, “Implementing the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea in East Asia: Issues and

Trend”, Singapore Yearbook of International Law, vol. 9 (2005), p. 1.
TP6PT This Agreement between China and Viet Nam is also of important significance for this case

from the point of view of the method of delimitation used. The particulars of this case are similar to those
of the Romanian-Ukrainian maritime delimitation in the Black Sea. Thus, in the delimitation area, China
and Viet Nam have both adjacent and opposite coas ts, while the Vietnamese Bach Long Vi island (a

minor maritime feature situated at 110 km away from Viet Nam’ s mainland and 130 km away from the

125 217
8.120. The Agreement between Australia and Indonesia concluded in 1997 TPFFPwill,

when it enters into force, delimit certa in of the continental shelf boundaries

between the two States, as well as defining the exclusive economic zone

boundary between the two States. The Agreement is of note in this context due

to its treatment of the Ashmore Islands; those islands are not given full weight

in drawing the boundary with the opposite coast of the Indonesian island of

Roti, but are restricted to a 24 nautical mile belt of continental shelf and

exclusive economic zone as against Indonesi a, despite the fact that the line so-

drawn is considerably closer to the is lands than the median line between the

islands and the opposite coast of Indonesia.

218
8.121. Other examples include TPF :PT

¾ The islands Luibainah al-Saghirah and L ubainah al-Kabirah appear to have

been discounted when establishing the boundary of the continental shelf
219
between Bahrain and Saudi Arabia TPF ;PT

¾ In the delimitation of the continenta l shelf between Canada and Denmark

(Greenland) it appears that the islands Crozier, Franklin and Hans were

disregarded by the parties when establishing the boundary.

¾ The large Australian islands of Boigu and Saibai, together with their associated

island Aubusi and Moimi, and Duan a nd Kaumang respectively, were awarded

Hainan island of China), straddles the equidistant/ median line between the relevant coasts. The

delimitation line agreed upon by the two Parties was constructed “in line with the principles of equality ,
taking into consideration all circumstances concerned in the Gulf to reach an equal (sic) solution” – see
the declaration of the Vietnamese minister of foreign affairs, Mr. Nguyen Dy Nien published by the

217tnamese newspaper Nhân Dân on 1 July 2004 (Annex RM 32)
TP PT Australia/Indonesia, Treaty establishing an Exclusive Economic Zone Boundary and Certain
Seabed Boundaries, 14 March 1997 (not yet in force), International Legal Materials, vol. 36, p. 1053.
[1997] ATNIF 4, Arts. 1 and 2.
218
TP PT See Hiran W. Jayewardene, The Regime of Islands in International Law , Martinus Nijhoff
Publishers, 1990, p. 402
TP9PT See also International Maritime Boundaries, vol II, edited by Jonathan I. Charney and Lewis M.

Alexander, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 1996, p. 1489-1494.

126 only 3-mile belts of territorial sea (i n the agreement between Australia and
220
Papua-New Guinea) TPFPT

(iii) Conclusions

8.122. The general trend of international jurisp rudence and State practice may thus be

summarised as follows:

• Insular formations located at some distance from the mainland coast of a

State are to be treated as a “special circumstance” (or analogously, as a

“relevant circumstance” under cust omary international law) where

giving them full effect would result in an inequitable result, and

accordingly are to be given reduced e ffect, and most often no effect, in

constructing the line for the purposes of delimitation;

• Small formations are entitled to a maximum 12 nautical mile territorial

sea enclave, unless that enclave overl aps with the territorial sea of the

entitlement of the territory of anothe r State, cases in which the breadth

of their territorial sea is reduced accordingly;

• This approach has been adopted irre spective of the question of whether

or not such formations constituted “rocks” capable of sustaining human

habitation or an economic life of their own within the meaning of

Article 121(3) of the 1982 UNCLOS – in many of the cases they could

not have been qualified as such.

8.123. Most of the cases presented above, both from jurisprudence and State practice,

considered maritime features far more important than Serpents’ Island. Most of

these insular formations have sizes over 1-10 km P, are permanently inhabited

and have a developing economic life. They would not fall in the category of

rocks covered by Article 121(3) of the 1982 UNCLOS. Nonetheless, they were

given no or only a limited effect in te rms of the delimitation of the exclusive

TP0PT See also International Maritime Boundaries, vol I, edited by Jonathan I. Charney and Lewis M.
Alexander, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 1996, p. 932.

127 economic zones or the continental shel f between the mainland coasts of the

States concerned.

(c) The enclosed nature of the Black Sea as a special circumstance

8.124. The enclosed nature of the sea to be de limited is a constituent part of the wider

requirement to take account of the ge ographic context of the area to be

delimited, as a special/relevant circumstance in delimitation.

8.125. The relevance of the enclosed character of the Black Sea, seen in conjunction

with the existing delimitation agreements, as well as their possible
consequences were analysed in paras. 6.21-6.34 of Chapter 6 of this Memorial.

(7) Conclusions

8.126. In Chapter 11 of this Memorial, Romania will analyse the relevance of each of

the factors chosen by the Parties in Artic le 4 of the Additional Agreement for
the facts of this case. For the pr esent, however, th e following general

conclusions may be drawn:

(a) The five delimitation “principles” established by the Additional

Agreement show the significance attached by the Parties to an

equitable solution of delimitation;

(b) The systematic interpretation of the five principles, together with the

references to the international State practice and jurisprudence that
has to be respected in applying certain prin ciples, leads to the

conclusion that the approach to be taken in delimitation is the one

known as equitable principles-r elevant circumstances (under

customary international law as embodied by the 1982 UNCLOS),
equivalent to equidistance-special circumstances approach (under

the 1958 Convention), consisting in first drawing a provisional

128 equidistant/median line between th e relevant coasts, and then

eventually shifting it to take into account the relevant/special

circumstances;

(c) This above-mentioned approach is consistent not only with the
Additional Agreement, but also with the recent constant case-law of

this Court;

(d) By specifically referring, in the Additional Agreement, to Article

121 of the 1982 UNCLOS, at a time when this Convention was not

in force between the Parties, and by not objecting to the Romanian

declaration made upon signature, and confirmed upon ratification, of
UNLCLOS, Ukraine accepted the a pplicability of the third

paragraph of Article 121 to the present case;

(e) The provisional equidistance/median line to be established as part of

the delimitation process is drawn between the relevant mainland

coasts of the Parties, minor maritime formations being only
relevant/special circumstances to be considered at a later stage;

(f) Thus minor maritime formations are given limited, often no, effect;

(g) Proportionality is not an independe nt method of delimitation, but a

test of the equitableness of the delimitation solution;

(h) The enclosed character of the sea is a relevant/special circumstance

to be considered together with any pre-existing delimitation
agreements; in consequence, any new delimitation should not

dramatically depart from the method previously used in the same sea

between other riparian States in order not to produce inequitable
results.

129 PARTIII

THE EQUITABLESOLUTION CHAPTER 9

RELEVANT COASTS AND RELEVANT AREAS

(1) Introduction: the two sectors of delimitation

9.1 As summarised in Chapter 1, this Court s hould approach the delimitation in the

present case in two sectors, in accordance with the factual relations between the

coasts of the two Parties – adjacency and oppositeness.

9.2 The boundary between the territorial seas of the two States was described by the

2003 Border Regime Treaty as following th e course originally agreed in 1949
between Romania and the Soviet Union, and which has been adopted in every

agreement between both Romania and the USSR, and subsequently Ukraine

since that date. From Point 1439 as la id down in the 1949 Procès Verbal and

subsequent agreements, that boundary runs along a 12 nautical mile arc drawn
around Serpents’ Island until it reache s the last point laid down in the 2003

Border Regime Treaty (which Romania has defined as Point F), and which

constitutes the outer limit of Romania’s te rritorial sea and the outer limit of the

territorial sea around Serpents’ Island.

9.3 The course of this boundary is not within the scope of the present Application.

The Court should nevertheless take account of the 2003 Border Regime Treaty
since Point F, as the point where the outer limits of the territorial seas

appertaining to Romania and Ukraine inte rsect, constitutes the starting point of

the delimitation line, and since this Treaty confirmed the validity of the

previous documents concluded between Romania and the USSR.

9.4 The first sector of delimitation is the one where the relationship of adjacency

between the Romanian and Ukrainian coas ts is dominant. The boundary in this
first sector runs from Point F up to the turning point, where it becomes

governed by points on the Ukrainian coas t (on the Crimean peninsula) which are opposite to the Romanian coast. As already explained, the first segment of

the boundary in this sector was al ready agreed upon by treaties between

Romania and the USSR – it follows the 12 nm arc surrounding Serpents’ Island.

9.5 The second sector is the one where the coasts ar e opposite to each other, and

the boundary runs from the turning point in a broadly southerly direction.

9.6 At the most southerly extreme of this s ector, the Court is re quested to indicate

the direction of the maritime boundary, the precise location of the tri-point with

a third State being a matter for subsequent negotiations.

9.7 As discussed in Chapter 8, the correct a pproach in relation to both sectors is

first to draw a provisional equidistan t/median line (excluding any maritime

features that are not to be taken into account at this stage), and then, if

necessary, to adjust that line to ta ke account of any relevant/special

circumstances (including the provisi ons of any relevant agreement which

already established a certain sector of the boundary).

9.8 Given the circumstances of the coastlines of the two Parties, an approach on the
basis of two sectors, in the first of which the coasts are to be treated as adjacent,

and in the second of which the coasts are to be treated as opposite to each other,

is justified.

9.9 For example, the Court in the North Sea Continental Shelf cases observed that

“[i]n certain geographical situat ions… a given equidistance line

may partake in varying degrees both of the nature of a median and
of a lateral line.”TPF1FPT

9.10 Such situations occurred in different cas es before this Court or other arbitral

tribunals. Thus, in the Anglo-French C ontinental Shelf arbitration, the Tribunal

treated the delimitation in two distinct sectors, within the English Channel and

in the Atlantic. In the Tribunal’s words:

221
TPPT ICJ Reports 1969, p. 17 (para. 6).

132 “the actual coastlines of th e two countries abutting on the

continental shelf to be delimited are comparatively short; and …
although separated by some 100 miles of sea, their geographical

relation to each other vis-à-vis the continental shelf to222
delimited is one of lateral rather than opposite coasts.” TPF FPT

9.11 In the Gulf of Maine case, within the Gulf the re levant coastlines were opposite

to each other, whereas beyond the “closing line” of the Gulf of Maine they were

223
in a situation more like that of adjacent coasts. TPFFPT

9.12 In the Qatar-Bahrain case, the Court distinguished between the southern area

and the area further north in the Gulf. As the Court said:

“In the southern part of the delim itation area, which is situated

where the coasts of the Parties are opposite to each other, the
distance between these coasts is nowhere more than 24 nm…

More to the north, however, where the coasts of the two States
are no longer opposite to each other but are rather comparable to
adjacent coasts, the delimitation to be carried out will be one

between the continental shelf and exclusive economic zone
belonging to each of the Parties, ar eas in which States have only

sovereign rights and functional jurisdiction. Thus both Parties
have differentiated between a southern and a northern sector.” TPF FPT

9.13 The case of the delimitation of the maritime areas of Romania and Ukraine in

the Black Sea involves the adjacent coasts of the Parties in the Danube delta

region faced entirely, across a large expans e of sea, by the Ukrainian coast of

Crimea. Thus, the same approach as in previous cases where coasts of the

parties have been regarded as being in part adjacent to each other, and in part as

having the nature of opposite coasts, can be taken.

9.14 Given the geography of the relevant coas ts, the location of the turning point

where the relation of adjacency turns into oppositeness is easy to find. This

point, which will be hereafter referred to as "Point T", is constituted by the point

TP2PT RIAA, Vol. XVIII, p. 109 (para. 233); I.L.R 1977, vol. 54, p. 213; International Legal Materials,
vol. 18, p. 452.
223
TP PT Further within the Gulf and approaching th e area of the land bound ary between the United
States and Canada, the coastlines were in a situation of “lateral adjacency”; see Delimitation of the
Maritime Boundary in the Gulf of Maine Area, Judgment, ICJ Reports 1984, p. 334 (para. 216).

133 where the equidistance line changes fr om being governed by points located on

the coasts of Ukraine which are adjacent to those of Romania, to being

governed by points on the coast of the Ukrainian Crimean Peninsula opposite

the Romanian coast.

(2) Determination of the relevant coasts

9.15 As already explained in Chapter 8, the appropriate method to conduct the

delimitation of the maritime areas in this case is to first draw a provisional

equidistant/median line, then to eventually adjust it in case of relevant/special

circumstances that would justify this.

9.16 In order to draw the provisional equidistance/median line, the relevant coasts of

the two States have to be identified ; as stated by the Court in the case

concerning Land and Maritime Boundary between Cameroon and Nigeria

(Cameroon v. Nigeria):

“Before it can draw an equidistance line and consider whether

there are relevant circumstances that might make it necessary to
adjust that line, the Court must , however, define the relevant
coastlines of the Parties by reference to which the location of the

base points to be used in the construction of the equidistance line
will be determined.” TPFFPT

9.17 In the case concerning Maritime Delimitation and Territorial Questions

between Qatar and Bahrain , the Court defined the equidistance line in the

following terms:

“The equidistance line is the li ne every point of which is
equidistant from the nearest points on the baselines from which

the breadth of the territorial seas of each of the two States is
measured.” TPFFPT

224
TP PT Maritime Delimitation and Territorial Questions between Qatar and Bahrain, Judgment, ICJ
225orts 2001, pp. 91, 93 (paras. 169-170).
TP PT Land and Maritime Boundary between Cameroon and Nigeria (Cameroon v. Nigeria;
Equatorial Guinea intervening), ICJ Reports 2002, judgment of 10 October 2002, (para. 290).
TP6PT Maritime Delimitation and Territorial Questions between Qatar and Bahrain, Judgment, ICJ

Reports 2001, p. 94 (para. 177).

1349.18 However, in calculating relevant coast le ngths and areas in order to assess the
proportionality of a provisional delimitati on, it is not the entirety of the coast

line of the State which is to be taken in to account, but rather merely those areas

of the coast of which the maritime areas are the “natural prolongation”. As the

Court observed in the Tunisia/LibyaContinental Shelf case:

“for the purpose of delimitation betw een the Parties, it is not the
whole of the coast of each Party which can be taken into

account; the submarine extension of any part of the coast of one
Party which, because of its geographic situation, cannot overlap
with the extension of the coast of the other, is to be excluded
from further consideration by the C ourt. It is clear from the map
that there comes a point on the coast of each of the two Parties

beyond which the coast in questio n no longer has a relationship
with the coast of the other Party relevant for submarine
delimitation. The sea-bed areas off the coast beyond that point
cannot therefore constitute an ar ea of overlap of extensions of

the territories of 227 two parties and are therefore not relevant for
the delimitation” TPFFPT

9.19 As to geographical configuration of the coasts, the following elements need to
be considered.

9.20 The Romanian coast is indisputably com posed of two distinct sectors: a short

and more or less straight sector from th e last point of the river border with
Ukraine to the southern extremity of the Sacalin Peninsula, and a longer,

slightly concave sector from the extremity of the Sacalin Peninsula to the border

with Bulgaria. The first sect or is in a relation of ad jacency with the Ukrainian

coast situated to the north. At the same time, the whole Romanian coast is in a

relation of oppositeness with the Ukrainian coast of Crimea, which it faces. This
relation can be easily seen in Figure 11 (page 137 of this Memorial).

9.21 In respect to Ukraine, as to the coast of the Crimean peninsula, Figure 11

clearly shows that north to the Cape Tarkhankut th e Ukrainian coast suddenly

and completely changes direction and ends its relation of oppositeness towards
the Romanian coast. In the sector of adjacent coasts, the most salient point on

135 the Ukrainian coast is the southern point of the mouth of the Nistru/Dniestr

River (Romania will refer to this point as "Point S"). From this point, the

Ukrainian coast changes its direction and the maritime area situated to the north

of the Point S – Cape Tarkhankut line is analogous to an interior Ukrainian bay,

each of its coasts facing coasts belongi ng to the same State (Ukraine) and there

not being any Ukrainian water areas overlapping the Romanian ones.

9.22 Consequently, the maritime spaces situated to the north of the line Point S–Cape

Tarkhankut do not pertain to the area wher e the projections of the coasts of the

two Parties overlap and should not be taken into account in the delimitation

process.

9.23 Having regard to these elements, the coasts relevant for delimitation are as

follows:

Sector 1 (adjacent coasts) :

on the Romanian side : the coast situated between the last point of

the land/river border between Romania and Ukraine
(45°13'06''N, 29°40'00''E) and the outer extremity of the Sacalin

Peninsula (44°47'21''N, 29°32'55''E);

on the Ukrainian side : the coast situated between the last point of
the land/river border between Romania and Ukraine
(45°13'06''N, 29 °40'00''E) and Point S (46 °04'20''N,

30°28'30''E).

These are depicted on Figure 11 (page 137 of this Memorial).

227
TP PT Continental Shelf (Tunisia/Libyan Arab Jamahiriya), Judgment, ICJ Reports 1982 , pp. 61-62,
(para. 75).

136 Figure 11

The relevant coasts of the two

States Sector 2 (opposite coasts) :

on the Romanian side : the whole Romanian coast, defined by the

last point of the land/river bor der between Romania and Ukraine

(45°13'06''N, 29°40'00''E) to the north and the final point of the

land Romanian-Bulgarian border (43 °44'20''N, 28 °34'51''E) to
the south;

on the Ukrainian side : the Crimean coast between Cape

Tarkhankut (45 °20'50''N, 32 °29'43''E) to the north and Cape

Sarych (44°23'07''N, 33°44'28''E) to the south.

These are also depicted on Figure 11 (page 137 of this Memorial).

9.24 The respective lengths of the relevant coasts are accordingly:

Sector 1 U(adjacent coasts ): the Romanian coast: 70.25 km

the Ukrainian coast: 172.40 km.

Sector 2 U(opposite coasts): Uthe Romanian coast: 269.67 km
the Ukrainian coast: 215.74 km.

Total – relevant coasts : the Romanian coast: 269.67 km
the Ukrainian coast: 388.14 km.

9.25 As between the Romanian and the Uk rainian coasts there is a visible

discrepancy, the former being more linear, while the latter being more indented,

the calculation of the lengths of the baselines of the coasts is also useful:

Sector 1 U(adjacent coasts ): the Romanian baselines: 41.45 km

the Ukrainian baselines: 119.90 km.

Sector 2 U(opposite coasts): Uthe Romanian baselines: 204.90 km
the Ukrainian baselines: 172.73 km.

Total – baselines of relevant coasts : the Romanian baselines: 204.90 km

the Ukrainian baselines: 292.63 km. (3) The relevant area

9.26 Having regard to the comparative simplicity of the area to be delimited there is

no special difficulty in identifying the relevant area, i.e. the area potentially

affected by the delimitation. It is as follows:

In the north, this area is bordered by a line uniting Point S (46 °04'20''N

30°28'30''E) and Cape Tarkhankut (45 °20'50''N, 32 °29'43''E) on the
Ukrainian coasts.

In the south, it is borde red by the line equidistan t between the adjacent
Romanian and Bulgarian coasts TPF, the line median between the opposite

Romanian and Turkish coast and th e delimitation line agreed upon by the
USSR and Turkey, to which Ukraine confirmed its succession.

In the south-east this area shall be delimited by the meridian uniting the
suthern extremity of the Crimean Peninsula (Cape Sarych) with the
delimitation boundary between Ukraine and Turkey.

In the west and in the east the ar ea is bordered by the Romanian and

Ukrainian relevant coasts, as specified in paragraph 9.23 above.

9.27 As specified above, the maritime area situated north to the Point S–Cape

Tarkhankut line does not overlap with Romanian water areas and has no

significance for the delimitation which, as between adjacent coasts, is

determined by points much closer to the common land border and, as between

opposite coasts, is determined by the coastal frontage of the Crimean Peninsula.

9.28 As far as the southern limit of the de limitation area so defined is concerned, the

eventual extension of the relevant area s outh to this southern limit could affect

interests of third States, like Bulgaria and Turkey.

9.29 The relevant area is depicted on Figure 12 (page 140 of this Memorial).

228
TPPT The determination of the line equidistant between the Romanian and Bulgarian coasts is
calculated for the purposes of the present case and is not meant to prejudge on the Romanian-Bulgarian
negotiations for the delimitation of their maritime areas in the Black Sea.

139 Figure 12

The relevant delimitation area

140 CHAPTER 10

SERPENTS’ ISLAND AS A ROCK WITHIN THE SCOPE OF

ARTICLE 121(3) OF THE 1982 UNCLOS

(1) Introduction

10.1 As already specified in paras. 4.3-4.26 of this Memorial, by various

agreements concluded between Romania and the USSR starting from

1949, the two States established in principle the course of the maritime
boundary in the area of Serpents’ Is land, on the 12-mile arc around it.

But, independently of these agreem ents, the course of the boundary in

this region would be substantially the same, since, according to Article

121(3) of the 1982 UNCLOS, as well as to State practice and case-law as
shown in paras. 8.86-8.123 of this Memorial, this minor maritime feature

would be given nil effect in the de limitation of the exclusive economic

zones or the continental shelf of Romania and Ukraine.

10.2 The purpose of the present Chapter is to show that Serpents’ Island is a

rock incapable of sustaining human habitation or economic life of its

own, therefore having no ex clusive economic zone or continental shelf,
as provided for in Article 121(3) of the 1982 UNCLOS. Not only is this

the case on the normal interpretation of Article 121(3), but the Parties

acknowledged its relevance to the de limitation even before Article 121

was binding on them as a result of the entry into force of the 1982
UNCLOS between Romania and Ukraine. Paragraph 4(a) of the

Additional Agreement expressly refers to

“The principle stated in Article 121 of the United Nations’
Convention on the Law of the Sea of December 10, 1982 as applied in the practice of states and in international
229
jurisprudence.” TPFFPT

In addition, the Parties agreed on a 12 nm all-purpose maritime zone

around Serpents’ Island at the time it was forcibly transferred to the

Soviet Union in 1949. Taking into account all these circumstances,
Serpents’ Island should be given no additional effect in the delimitation.

(2) The meaning of the term “rocks” in Article 121 (3)

10.3 The term “rocks” in Article 121(3) should not be given a restrictive

definition. It is clear from an anal ysis of Article 121 as a whole that
“rocks” within the meaning of Article 121(3) are a subset of the category

of islands, i.e. they are naturally formed, entirely surrounded by water,

and above water at high tide; this corresponds to the general definition of

islands given in paragra ph 1. Moreover, this is also obvious from the

very inclusion of paragraph 3 within Article 121: both Part VIII and

Article 121 are entitled “Regime of Islands ” and the travaux

préparatoires of the Convention show that th e intent of the drafters was

to institute an exceptional regime in respect to very small islands

incapable of sustaining human life. The fact that rocks constitute

exceptions in respect to the general principle embodied in paragraph 2 of

Article 121 is clearly confirmed by th e words “Except as provided for in

paragraph 3…” which introduce paragraph 2.

10.4 Article 121(3) does not specify any si ze limit. There is no reason to limit

it to tiny features a few metres large, i.e. to mere isolated rocks; such

features could not on any view support human habitation or economic

life, so that if the word “rocks” wa s limited to such protuberances above

sea-level the qualifying phrase would be unnecessary. In the Jan Mayen

229
TPPT For an analysis of this principle, see above, para. 8.4-8.41 of this Memorial.

142 case, the Court appears to have ac cepted that the rocky island of Jan

Mayen did not fall within the categor y described in Article 121(3). But

Jan Mayen is a large and mountainous island roughly 50 kilometres in

length and varying between 2.5 and 16 kilometres in width, giving an
2 230
area of 380 km P.TPF FBy contrast, Serpents’ Island has an area of only 0.17

km P; in other words, Jan Mayen’s surface area is 2,235 times that of

Serpents’ Island.

10.5 Whatever maximum size threshold mi ght be set by interpretation of the

term “rocks”, Serpents’ Island does not surpass that threshold. As

correctly noted by the 13 July 2002 edition of the Ukrainian newspaper

Iug: “…even to denominate Serpents’ Islands an ‘island’ is excessive. Its

total length is 615 meters, its width is 560 meters and in narrower places

231
a little over 90 meters…” TPF FThe tiny surface of Serpents’ Island is

nevertheless an important element to be taken into account when

addressing the definition containe d in Article 121(3) of the 1982

UNCLOS. Its small size is, at least, an indication of its unfitness for

human habitation.

10.6 In all respects, taking into account its natural characteristics, Serpents’

Island qualifies as a “rock” within the meaning of Article 121(3):

(i) it is a rocky formation;

(ii)it is devoid of water sources other than rainfall, and virtually

devoid of soil, vegetation and fauna;

(iii) it is incapable of sustaining human life of its own; and

(iv)it is incapable of generating any economic life of its own.

TP0PT Maritime Delimitation in the Area between Greenland and Jan Mayen (Denmark v.

Norway), Judgment, ICJ Reports 1993, p. 46 (para. 15). See also Conciliation Commission on the
Continental Shelf Area Between Iceland and Jan Mayen : Report and Recommendations to the
Governments of Iceland and Norway , 20 International Legal Materials pp. 801-802. See also
International Maritime Boundaries, vol II, edited by Jonathan I. Charney and Lewis M.

231xander, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 1996, p. 1756.
TP PT Article titled “The apple of discord tasting like oil” , published in Iug, issue no. 51
(15053), of 13 July 2002;author: Alexandr Iurcenko (Annex RM 33).

14310.7 Furthermore, the relevance of Article 121(3) is to be analyzed in the light

of the Romanian declaration made upon signature of the 1982 UNCLOS

and confirmed upon ratification, which refers to the uninhabited islands

without economic life which cannot affect the delimitation of the
232
maritime areas belonging to the mainland coasts of States. TPFFPT

th
10.8 In this Chapter studies of various authors published at the end of the 19 P P
th
century and the first half of the 20 P Pcentury (until the Word War II), as

well as articles published in the Ukrainian press after Ukraine’s

independence in 1991, will be cited. Unfortunately, Romania could found

no documentary mentions of Serpen ts’ Island from th e period when it

was under Soviet rule (1948–1991); this is probably due to its then

military status, which might have been the reason for it not being covered

by public reports.

10.9 The studies and the other texts pu blished before 1948 which are cited

here were written at a period when Serpents’ Island belonged to Romania

and no change in its status was fore seen. Furthermore, the question of

delimitation of maritime areas between neighbouring States, let alone the

role of islands and other maritime features in such delimitations, was not

debated at that time. Thus, the author s of the quoted st udies could in no

way be suspected of trying to create a false image on Serpents’ Island in

order to bring about eventual benefits for Romania. The facts and images

presented in their writings represente d the reality of Serpents’ Island, as

perceived by the authors concerned.

10.10 As far as the recent Ukrainian articles are concerned, some explanations

are also relevant. Freedom of expression in Ukraine was under question

at the time these articles were published. This can be seen from

resolutions of bodies such as the Pa rliamentary Assembly of the Council

of Europe, which reported on the c ontrol the Ukrainian media were

232
TP PT See paras. 8.20-8.30 of this Memorial.

144 233
subjected to by the Ukrainian authorities at that time. TPF FPFor example, the

Rapporteur of the Council of Europe pointed out

“the strong tendency [of the Ukrainian State authorities] to
234
control and regulate everything” FP PT

The Ukrainian mass media were regarded as a political instrument for the

State officials of that period to promote their guidelines, by a

“continuing practice of imposi ng on journalists officially

approved guidelines (temnyki) for covering events, which

constitute[d] a newly-created type of implicit
censorship.” TPF FPT

10.11 In this context, the articles publishe d in the Ukrainian media, covering a

subject which was an issue of diplomatic debate with a neighbouring

State, can be considered as reflectin g not mere impressions of journalists

who reported on Serpents’ Island from the private sector, but rather the

quasi-official position of Ukraine . Comments published or broadcast by

the Ukrainian mass-media on this i ssue can be considered to have

expressed the position of the Ukrainian authorities in relation to the

situation of Serpents’ Island.

233
TP PT See the Opinion of the Committee on Culture and Education of the Parliamentary
Assembly of the Council of Europe on the freedom of expression in Ukraine , Rapporteur:

Andrzej Urbanczyk, Poland, Socialist Group; Doc. 8946/ 23 January 2001 ( Annex RM 34 ).
Referring, inter alia, to the well-known Gongadze Case, the rapporteur characterized Ukraine as

234e of the countries in Europe where the profession of journalist [wa]s the most dangerous".
TP PT Ibid.
TP5PT Resolution 1346 (2003) of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe

"Honouring of obligations and commitments by Ukraine", para. 5 (vii) (Annex RM 35).

145 (i) Serpents’ Island is a rocky formation

10.12 It is not necessary in the present case for the Court to decide whether the

term “rocks” within Artic le 121(3) is restricted to insular formations

which geologically can be so describe d, i.e. that such formations are

composed mainly of stone and no or little accompanying soil. Whether

or not Article 121(3) applies to sand cays or similar formations is not in

point: it is clear that Serpents’ Island qualifies as a rock in the geological

sense. Geologically, Serpents’ Island is composed of hard siliceous grit-

stone, conglomerate and quartzite. In this context, it may be noted that it

has a composition similar to the mountai ns of Dobrogea, appearing to be

a natural sudden peak/rise of the prol ongation of the continental plate of

Dobrogea’s offshore. Its rocky character appears from Figures 3, 4 (page

18 of this Memorial), 13 - 22 (pages 147, 149, 153, 158, 182 and 183 of

this Memorial), as well as from further pictures annexed to this Memorial

(Annexes RM 89 to RM 93).

10.13 Various travellers, journalists, scientists or representatives of the

European Danube Commission have acknowledged its rocky

composition, providing details about its appearance. All these statements

reveal the fact that Serpent’s Island is – as the Ukrainian newspaper
236
“Kievskie Vedomosti” put it – “a rock of compact stone” TPF.PT

10.14 Thus, in 1856, in a report to Count Boul-Schauenstein, the Baron of

Hübner wrote

“It results from this work that this island,[…] is a rock of
small size, of a length of 600 metres and a circumference
237
of 2000 […]” TPF (emphasis added)

236
TP PT Article titled “The Tourist Island”, published in the Ukrainian newspaper Kievskie
Vedomosti, issue no. 56 (2861) of 17 March 2003; author: Serghei Milosevich (Annex RM 36).
TP7PT Report of Baron of Hübner to Count Boul-Schauenstein with respect to the condition of
Serpents’ Island: geographical data about it, opinion on who would be entitled to own it, etc.

Xerographic Collection of Vienna, CCVI/1, pp. 105-112 (Annex RM 37).

146 Figure 13

The rocks of Serpents’ Island
- from the 1931 volume of R. I. Călinescu ”Insula Şerpilor.

Schiţă monografică” – see Annex RM6

Figure 14

Image of Serpents’ Island

- from the 1931 volume of R.I. Călinescu ”Insula Şerpilor.
Schiţă monografică” – see Annex RM6

14710.15 In a report on the improvement of navigation on lower Danube, written in

1857 by C.A. Hartley, Chief Engin eer of the European Danube

Commission, it was recorded that:

“In respect of its geological composition, the island is
formed of a very rough sili ceous conglomerate, and the

huge blocs of stone which make up the cliffs that surround
it naturally sugge st the idea of using them for

constructions […]. But the tr ansportation would be very
difficult, given the isolated pos ition of the island and the
stormy character of the sea.” TF38FPT

10.16 In 1920, the European Danube Commission issued document no. 5/0, in

which it referred inter alia to the lighthouse on Serpents’ Island. It

noticed

“the transport difficulties to the island which is a lonely
rock situated at about 24 nautical miles from the mouth of
239
Sulina […]” TPFF(emphasis added).

10.17 R. I. Călinescu, in his monographic st udy on Serpents’ Island, published

in 1931, concluded:

“Serpents’ Island is entirely constituted of grit stones and

quartzite conglomerates, the same that Peters presumes to
exist in the Teli ţa Valey, under the loess, constituting the

subsoil of the delta towards the sea.

These grit stones and conglomerates are very wide-ranging
as particles, but they are monotonous as a composition,
being constituted almost en tirely of various ranges of

quartz. Usually there are grit stones and conglomerates
made out of a single sort of quartz, colourless, transparent

or translucent. […]

238
TP PT Report on the improvement of navigation on Lower Danube, presented to the European
Commission by Mr. C.A. Hartley, its chief-engineer, Galatz, 17 October 1857 , General
Department of the National Archives, Galatz, Romania, European Danube Commission, 5/1857-

2398, pp. 19-20 (Annex RM 38).
TP PT Document no. 5/0, issued by the Technical Department of the European Danube
Commission on 28 June 1920, at Sulina, General Department of the National Archives, Galatz,
Romania, European Danube Commission. S. G., 82/1919-1923, pp. 7,8 (Annex RM 39). Figure 15, 16

The cliffs and rocks of Serpents’ Island

- from the 1931 volume of R.I. Călinescu ”Insula Şerpilor.
Schiţă monografică” – see Annex RM6 According to Murgoci, the lit tle layer of red lehm (terra
rosa) maintained here on the quartzites or even

conglomerates (especially at eas t, as those at the base of

the loess) is a hint that the entire island has been covered
in the past with terra-rosa and loess, although the loess is

missing nowadays, as far as we know, being probably

washed out afterwards by the rains and the sea
waters…” TPF FPT

10.18 In an internal report addressed to the Romanian Minister for Home

Affairs in 1938, there is also a complete descrip tion of Serpents’ Island.

The authors of the report refer to it as

“… a huge oval monument of black stone, getting out
from the waves of the sea with a chapel (the lighthouse) in

its middle […]

The island is made up of volcanic rocks and is covered

with a thin layer of black soil, having its origin in
droppings of countless migratory birds…” TPF FPT

10.19 The Great Soviet Encyclopaedia described, in 1933, Serpents’ Island as

follows:

“Serpents’ Island (in Romanian, Insula Şerpilor) is a small
242
rocky island at the mouths of the Danube…” TPF FPT

10.20 In the 1938 Romanian newspaper Acţiunea, the author, D.L. Stahiescu,

also notes the rocky nature of Serpents’ Island:

“A remainder of a huge mountain that fell down under the

waters of the sea long time ago, it is obviously a
243
rock…” TPF FPT

240
TP PT R.I. Calinescu, Insula Şerpilor. Schi ţă monografic ă (Serpents’ Island. Monographic
Study), published in the Analele Dobrogei magazine, “Glasul Bucovinei” Publishing House,
Cernauti, 1931 (Annex RM 6), pp. 9-11.
241
TP PT Report addressed to the Romanian Minister for Home Affairs with respect to Serpents’
Island, drafted and signed by a Police Inspector and by the M.D. in Chief of the Ministry of

Home Affairs (indecipherable signatures), 14 May 1938 (Annex RM 40).
TP2PT The Great Soviet Encyclopaedia, Volume 27, Moscow, 1933, p. 74 (Annex RM 41).
243
TP PT Article titled “Insula Serpilor" ("Serpents’ Island)”, published in the Romanian
newspaper Acţiunea (The Action), issue 2343, of 25 March 1938; author: D. L. Stahiescu (Annex
RM 42).10.21 Ion Simionescu, in his Picturesque of Romania , volume I, Between

Danube and the Sea (1942) described the rocky appearance of Serpents’

Island:

“… you find yourself near the stony rock getting up about
20 metres, at the most, above th e sea level. [...] It is the

evidence remaining further to the falling down of
Dobrogea, as the foundation of the island is made up of

rocks similar to those of the northern shore of
Dobrogea.” TPF FPT

10.22 Serpents’ Island is subject to a cont inuous process of erosion, which was

noted by several of the scientists that studied it. In his 1894 study on

Serpents’ Island, the Romanian resear cher George Popa recalls a poem

by Festus Rufus Avienus, Descriptio orbis terrae , evoking the rocky

Leuce as a place where “the rocks unfasten due to the crumbling of the
245
land, their hollowed vault hanging above.” TPF FPT

10.23 Another Romanian scientist, R. I. Călinescu, in his already quoted work

from 1931, Serpents’ Island, also remarks that one can see, at each of the

edges of the maritime feature, big masses of fallen stone blocks.

According to the scientist,

“all these blocks represent the outcome of the crumbling

of the shore due to the ongoing striking of the waves, and
also due to the specific petrographic structure of the
246
island” TPF.PT

10.24 A comparison of older and contempor ary writings reveals the way in

which the island itself wes being eroded.

“Thus, Nordmann, comparing the island, in 1841, with the

map of Kritsky (drawn in 1824) reaches the conclusion
that ‘instead of 3 rocks elevated above the water, existing

in 1824 (in N-W), a collapse of the shores was produced,

244
TP SImnionescu, Pitorescul României (The Picturesque of Romania), volume I, Între
Dunăre şi mare (Between the Danube and the Sea), “Cartea Românească” Publishing House ,
1942 (Annex RM 43), p. 62.
TP5PT George Popa, Λευκη. Insula Şerpilor ( Λευκη. Serpents’ Island), in the Romanian

Magazine for History, Archaeology and Philology , published by the “I.V. Socecu” Publishing
House, Bucharest, 1894 (Annex RM 44), p. 13.
TP6PRa.Ili.nescu, Insula Şerpilor. Schi ţă monografic ă (Serpents’ Island. Monographic
Study), published in the Analele Dobrogei magazine, “Glasul Bucovinei” Publishing House,

Cernăuţi, 1931 (Annex RM 6), p. 2.
151 completely altering the appearance of this cape’ – ‘in S-W,

a significant opening, determined (perhaps) by the tearing
apart of the stone block; [ ...] among the caves mentioned

by the antique writers, only one still exists, on the South-

Western edge of the island, at the sea level’

Today, not even this cave is to be s een, only a mass of

rolled down rocks and boulders can be noticed in its
place.” TPF FPT

10.25 Călinescu draws the conclusion that

“the future of Serpents’ Isla nd is gloomy: sooner or later it
248
will perish, further to the action of the sea waves” TPF .PT

10.26 Mihai Drăghicescu, in his book published in 1943, The History of the

Main Landmarks on the Danube, from the Tisa’s Mouth to the Sea and

on the Sea Shore, from Varna to Odessa, remarks:

“There is no doubt about the fact that its [Serpents’
Island’s] dimensions are continuously shrinking because
249
of the strong striking waves.” TPF FPT

247
TP PT R.I. Calinescu, Insula Şerpilor. Schi ţă monografic ă (Serpents’ Island. Monographic
Study), published in the Analele Dobrogei magazine, “Glasul Bucovinei” Publishing House,
Cernăuţi, 1931 (Annex RM 6)., p. 12.
248
TP PT Ibid., p. 12.
TP9PT Mihai Drăghicescu, Istoricul principalelor puncte pe Dun ăre dela Gura Tisei pân ă la

Mare şi pe coastele m ării dela Varna la Odesa (The History of the Main Landmarks on the
Danube, from the Tisa’s Mouth to the Sea and on the Sea Shore, from Varna to Odessa),
Bucharest, 1943 (Annex RM 45), p.490.

152 Figure 17

The rocks on Serpents’ Island

- from the 1931 volume of Radu Călinescu ”Insula Şerpilor.
Schiţă monografică” – see Annex RM6

Figure 18

Inter-bellum picture of Serpents’ Island
As it is noticed, the rocky maritime feature exhibits no
ve getation, the only building being the lighthouse10.27 G. Ra şcu has a similar opinion, referring to the stormy waves “that

reduced its [Serpents' Island's] surface to less than a half.” TPFFPT

(ii) Serpents’ Island is devoid of water sources other than rainfall and

practically devoid of soil, vegetation and fauna

10.28 The rocky and poor soil of Serpents' Island only allows for very poor

vegetation. No mammals live on it – its fauna comprising mainly insects,

reptiles and birds. It is sporadically visited by migratory birds, but the

lack of any fresh water sources mean s that the feature remains generally

only a resting place for them.

10.29 The desolate appearance of Serp ents’ Island was noticed by foreign

travellers in the early 1800s. Thus, Edward Daniel Clarke, in the 1810

edition of his Travels in Various Countries of Europe, Asia and Africa ,

noted that Serpents’ Island

“is so small, that as we pa ssed we could view its whole
extent[...] It is quite bare; be ing covered only with a little
grass and very low herbage.” TPFFPT

10.30 These remarks are confirmed by numerous observers who studied

Serpents’ Island during the inter-war years, a period – it should be once

again emphasised – when its status and appurtenance were not in issue in

any way.

10.31 Thus, on 1 June 1926 Professor Al exandru Borza from the Cluj

University (Romania) visited Serpents’ Island. The results of his detailed

research on its vegetation were published in a booklet entitled Phyto-

sociologic observations on Serpents’ Island , published in 1929.

Professor Borza wrote that:

“…From the agents that caused the apparition of plants on
this island I have to mark off especially the waters of the

Black Sea. As shown by my experiments made in

TP0PT George Rascu, Insula Serpilor (Serpents’ Island), “Atelierele Grafice Emil Grabovschi”
Publishing House, Chişinău, 1940 (Annex RM 46), p.7.
251
TP PT Edward Daniel Clarke, Travels in various countries of Europe, Asia and Africa, Part the
First, Russia, Tartary and Turkey, Cambridge, Printed at the University Press by H. Watts, 1810,
p. 649-650 (Annex RM 47). collaboration with Mr. G. Bu joreanu (1926) using seeds of
21 species of plants existi ng on Serpents’ Island, all of

them might have come floating, preserving their
germinating power even after a period of 7-45-60 days of

damping and staying in water [...]

From information provided by the lighthouse keepers -

people from Sulina working on the island, I find that
extreme, prolonged draught, lack of rain and of water on

the island, as well as dryness of the air are the most striking
climacteric phenomena here. Fo r good reasons I can infer

that the minimal presence of the water factor and the
maximal evaporation due to solar heat are the most decisive
factors that influence the selection of the plants that arrived

by chance on the island and are trying to germinate here.

The plateau dominated by an extremely draughty climate,
with little rain and large ev aporation is covered [...] by a
thick bed of Gramineae and weeds, is a herbaceous steppe

[…].

During summertime the entire vegetation is dried or

yellow-greyish, only in small depressions Hordeum
leporinum remains still green [...]

The inconstancy of this association is certainly due to the
soil having little cohesion, which freezes and unfreezes,
252
slides and is disaggregated […]” TPF FPT

From these observations, Borza concluded that:

“the importance of the water f actor – in minimum, and of
evaporation – in maximum for the admission in the area of

this island of new plants brought by hazard on the island 253
and in their distribution is of a striking evidence” TPF.PT

10.32 Details about the flora and fauna on th e Serpents’ Island are given also by

George Popa, in his monographic st udy about this maritime feature,

th
carried out at the end of the 19 P Pcentury:

“There are no smelling flowers or plants; either trees or
bushes […]

252
TP PAlexan Bdorruza, Observaţiuni fitosociologice pe Insula Şerpilor (Phyto-sociological
observations on the Serpents’ Island), the Publishing House of the Romanian Naturalists Society,
Cluj, 1929 (Annex RM 48), p. 2-5.
TP3PAlexan Bdorruza, Observaţiuni fitosociologice pe Insula Şerpilor (Phyto-sociological

observations on the Serpents’ Island), the Publishing House of the Romanian Naturalists Society,
Cluj, 1929 (Annex RM 48), p. 6
155 The real masters of the island are, indeed, the birds. They
are countless, although there are only two species. The

yellow-legged gulls (larus cachinans) […] and the black
cormorants (phalacrocorax). The yellow-legged gulls are
white and beautiful, but they are so nasty, that will not

allow any other bird to rest on the island. They will even
chase people. […]

Apart from birds, there are black serpents (coluber hydrus)

wandering about on the island – an d that explains its very
name, the Serpents’ Island – having a small head, a red

belly and a 4-5 feet length. […]

Finally, the ultimate masters of the island, and, at the same
time, the most dangerous, are the so called scolopendrae

cingulatae 254ects, the most part of which hide in the
ground.” TPFFPT

10.33 The already mentioned internal report addressed to the Romanian Minister

for Home Affairs in 1938 mentions the fact that

“On the island there is no tree, the growing of taller plants

being hindered by powerful marine storms and the
thinness of the soil.

[…] During spring and autum n, a small scarce grass and
some little marine flowers cove r almost the entire island,

which is sprinkled, at sma ll distances, with big stone
blocks, belonging to the volcan ic rocks fundament of the
255
island.” TPFFPT

10.34 In 1938, in the Romanian newspaper Acţiunea ( The Action ), D.L.

Stahiescu writes:

“Having an area of 17 hectar es, the white rock, not too
high above the sea waters, seems, from far, the top of a
foamy wave turned into stone in the same place from

millennia. A remainder of a huge mountain that fell down
under the waters of the sea l ong time ago, it is obviously
a rock, covered only with a th in layer of soil strangely

kept and remained there. In the huge desert of the sombre
surrounding waters, the island is itself desert, inhabited

TPPT George Popa, Λευκη. Insula Şerpilor ( Λευκη. Serpents’ Island), in the Romanian
Magazine for History, Archaeology and Philology , published by the “I.V. Socecu” Publishing
House, Bucharest, 1894 (Annex RM 44), p. 6-7.
255
TPPT Report addressed to the Romanian Minister for Home Affairs with respect to Serpents’
Island, drafted and signed by a Po lice Inspector and by the M.D. in Chief of the Ministry for
Home Affairs (indecipherable signatures), 14 May 1938 (Annex RM 40).
156 only by birds that cross the ai r near the surface of the
waters, in order to catch th eir assiduously-searched prey

and by black serpents that crawl on the stones. With its
poverty and isolation, the island can be useful for us only

as a guarding border post in front of the mouths of the
256
Danube…” TPF FPT

10.35 Other observations are made, in his 1931 monographi c study about

Serpents’ Island, by R.I. C ălinescu, who collected his impressions in situ.

These remarks refer to the soil, vegetation and fauna of Serpents’ Island:

“Serpents’ Island is situated in the driest area of the East-

European steppes […]

Among the plants brought in th e island, it is obvious that
not all had the chance to acc limatise here; some species

disappeared sooner or later and they could no longer be
noticed.

The first to come, most likely the Graminaeae, brought by

man or birds, had the advant age of lacking concurrence,
although they had to fight w ith the poor condition of the

soil and with the clime of the island, very dry during
summer” TPF PT

10.36 In the same vein, G. Ra şcu, a teacher at the Military College and the

Theological Seminary in Chişinău, remarked in 1940, in his monographic

study dedicated to Serpents’ Island:

“Barren rock all over the place, on which Gramineae

hardly grows, green only in spring. Nowhere could I find
yellow soil or loess, which must have existed once, but it

was washed off by natural agents. Man can cultivate
nothing on this ingrate land […] The fauna of the island is
258
as poor as the flora.” TPFFPT

TPPT Article titled “Insula Serpilor (Serpents’ Island)”, published in the Romanian newspaper

Acţiunea (The Action), issue 2343, of 25 March 1938; author: D. L. Stahiescu (Annex RM 42).
TPPT R.I. Calinescu, Insula Şerpilor. Schi ţă monografic ă (Serpents’ Island. Monographic
Study), published in the Analele Dobrogei magazine, “Glasul Bucovinei” Publishing House,

258năuţi, 1931 (Annex RM 6), p. 13, 23.
TPPTGeRorascu, Insula Serpilor (Serpents’ Island), “Atelierele Grafice Emil Grabovschi”
Publishing House, Chişinău, 1940 (Annex RM 46), p. 8.

157 Figures 19, 20

The poor life on Serpents’ Islands
- pictures from the inter-bellum period - 10.37 Another relevant example in this respect is the chapter dedicated to

Serpents’ Island in România Pitorească (Picturesque Romania), published

in 1901, by the Romanian writer Alexandru Vlahuţă:

“We are on the top, near the lighthouse. There is no tree
about, no bush to be seen on the cracked limed wrinkles of

this island. The waves are sighing all around us. They
keep on coming from far away, like nations never to find
their peace, breaking in a howl by the rocky shores of the

island, constantly beating it as if wanting to put it out of
place” TPF .PT

10.38 Ion Simionescu also noted in his 1942 study about Serpents’ Island:

“The island is empty or almo st empty; it is not only the
fact that it is placed so far away that prevents it to be
populated, but also the inhospitable soil, rock burnt by the

steppe sun, little sprinkled by rain and randomly covered
with a thin layer of red soil, always dry […]

During summer, the island looks like burnt off, just like
the Dobrogea hills, just like the Popina island, of Raselm.

The steppe sun quickly burns it, while the tree shadow is
unknown there. Only during spring is it adorned with

some spots of green grass, sprinkled with few small
flowers of daisies, mallow, yellow little coins of
dandelion, and a small number of some other flowered

plants, small and ordinary. There are hardly about 40
plants, belonging to the category of the unhappy ones that
have no choice whatsoever. As they are supposed to

survive anyway, they do it wherever and however they
can.” TPFFPT

10.39 The sterile condition of Serpents’ Isla nd is also revealed by the fact that

there are no local fresh water resources – the only fresh water supplies

being provided by rain or by the ma inland. Numerous remarks, of those

visiting Serpents’ Island (including modern Ukrainia n sources) confirm

this assertion.

259
TP PT Alexandru Vlahuta, Romania Pitoreasc ă (Picturesque Romania), “I.V. Socecu”
260lishing House, Bucharest, 1901 (Annex RM 49), p. 63.
TP PT Ion Simionescu, Pitorescul României (The Picturesque of Romania), volume I, Între
Dunăre şi mare (Between the Danube and the Sea), “Cartea Românească” Publishing House, 1942
(Annex RM 43), pp. 63-64.10.40. Thus, as Mihai Dr ăghicescu concluded in his 1943 work, The History of

the Main Landmarks on the Danube, fr om the Tisa’s Mouth to the Sea

and on the Sea Shore, from Varna to Odessa,

“there aren’t any resources of fresh water but the rain water

collected in tanks and this water is not drinkable, because of
the snakes dead bodies…” TPFFPT

10.41. In the same work, the author reveals that

“in 1856, as it [Serpents' Island] had been occupied by the

Turkish army, they were compelled to bring drinkable water
from the Danube.” TPF FPT

10.42. In the same vein, the Roma nian scientist Raul I. Călinescu noted in 1931

the way people at the lighthouse supplie d themselves with fresh water.

He then noticed the existence of f our water tanks, two of them being

placed on each of the sides of the Is land, a third one, in its northern part

and a fourth, the most important one , in the yard of the lighthouse.

Referring to the latter, he described the way the rainwater was collected:

trough pipes and hoses, together with dirt and debris deposited on the

roof of the lighthouse building. TPF FPT

10.43. Reference to the necessity to use ra inwater, due to the lack of any other

water resource, is also made by the above-quoted 1938 report to the

Romanian Minister for Home Affairs – its authors drawing, in addition,

conclusions with respect to the conse quences that this kind of water had

on the health of the people at the lighthouse who drank it:

“The lack of fresh water on the island is hard to bear; the

few sailors and guardians of the lighthouse have to drink
rain water, which is collected in some big cement reservoirs.

TP1PMD irai ăghicescu, Istoricul principalelor puncte pe Dun ăre dela Gura Tisei pân ă la

Mare şi pe coastele m ării dela Varna la Odesa (The History of the Main Landmarks on the
Danube, from the Tisa’s Mouth to the Sea and on the Sea Shore, from Varna to Odessa),
Bucharest, 1943 (Annex RM 45), p. 492.
TP2PT Ibid., p. 491
263
TP PT R.I. Calinescu, Insula Şerpilor. Schi ţă monografic ă (Serpents’ Island. Monographic
Study), published in the Analele Dobrogei magazine, “Glasul Bucovinei” Publishing House,
Cernăuţi, 1931 (Annex RM 6), pp. 49-50.

160 This permanent need for wate r is more obvious in the case

of those brought up on the land, used to the land, as the rain
water can affect, in a negative way, the alimentary canal, as

a consequence of its strang e taste and of its specific
264
chemical composition.” TPF FPT

10.44. Nowadays, the want of fresh water continues to be one of the great

difficulties of Serpents’ Island. Th is fact is acknowledged by the

Ukrainian side too. Thus, according to the Ukrainian newspaper Moloda

Ukraina, in a 2002 article commenting on the measures undertaken by

the Ukrainian authorities to devel op the infrastructure on Serpents’

Island, “[…] in summer, significant s upplies of drinking water and fuel

were brought” TPFFthere. Further on, the author of the article underlines

that

“there is a series of problem s to which a solution has not

been found yet, among which the supplying with drinkable
water and the sewage” TPFF(emphasis added).

10.45. In the same vein, another Ukrainian newspaper, Golos Ukraini, of 23

April 2003, acknowledges the fact that

“because of the bad weather and storms, all supplies,

including potable water , are brought from the continent to
last for several months.” TPF FPT

10.46. Taking these factors into account, it is clear that the lack of vegetation,

the lack of fresh water, the scarcity of the soil to sustain such vegetation,

and life, in general, characterise Serpents’ Island. The efforts of the

Ukrainian authorities (referred to later in this Memorial) to change the

appearance of this maritime feature are relevant in a way which is

presumably unintended, as they reveal the genuine condition of Serpents’

264
TP PT Report addressed to the Romanian Minister for Home Affairs with respect to Serpents’
Island, drafted and signed by a Police Inspector an d by the M.D. in Chief of the Ministry for
Home Affairs (indecipherable signatures), 14 May 1938 (Annex RM 40).
265
TP PT Article titled “The taming of the serpents”, published by the Ukrainian newspaper
Ukraina Moloda, issue no. 167 (1973) of 12 September 2002; author: M. Axaniuk ( Annex RM
50).
266
267PT Ibid.
TP PT Article titled “A patch of Ukraine between sea and sky” , published in the Ukrainian
newspaper Golos Ukraini, issue no. 78 (3078) of 23 April 2003 (Annex RM 51).

161 Island. Thus, numerous Ukrainian ne wspapers, when talking about the

measures carried out by the aut horities in order to transform

Serpents’ Island, convey information about its actual state.

10.47. Recent Ukrainian articles show that the Ukrainian authorities have lately

brought fertile soil on Serp ents’ Island. Thus, on 7 P May 2003, the

newspaper Golos Ukraini notes that

“on Serpents’ Island in the Black Sea a little forest of acacias
and shrubs has appeared. The team of the ship GS-212 has

brought here young trees and 2 tons of fertile chernozem […].
Until now on the island there was only one tree, near the
268
lighthouse.” TPF FPT

10.48. In another article published on 17 March 2003 by the newspaper Kievskie

Vedomosti, it was noted that

“on this very little piece of land, with the dimensions of
500/600 meters, hundreds of trees and shrubs are to be

transplanted. This work is very complex, the island represents
a rock of compact stone and for the planting of the vegetation

it is necessary to make special excavations and to fill them up
with soil brought from the continent.” TPF FPT

10.49. An article entitled The little town of the lighthouse on Serpents’ Island

published by Odesskie Izvestia , on 3 November 2004, includes the

following paragraphs:

“Presently, the works for the creation of green areas continue.

The planting of 400 olive-trees is intended. As the director of

the “Ostrovnoe” Enterprise, Vi ktor Ostrogliada, mentioned,
the specialists of the Botanical Garden of Odessa have tried to

plant 18 species of trees and bushes on Serpents’ Island […]
Together with the trees, the ship will bring to the island about
270
8 tons of fertile soil for the plants” TPF PT

268
TP PT Article titled “Acacias are going to blossom on Serpents’ Island, too”, published in the
Ukrainian newspaper Golos Ukraini, issue no. 83 (3083), of 7 May 2003; author: Gheorghi

269otniuc (Annex RM 52).
TP PT Article titled “The Tourist Island”, published in the Ukrainian newspaper Kievskie
Vedomosti, issue no. 56 (2861); author: Serghei Milosevich (Annex RM 36).
270
TP PT Article titled “The little town of the lighthouse on Serpents’ Island”, published by the
Ukrainian newspaper Odesskie Izvestia, issue no. 207 (3025), of 3 November 2004 (Annex RM
53).

162(iii) Serpents’ Island is incapable of sustaining human habitation

10.50.Not only the isolation of Serpen ts’ Island, but also the natural

environment, the lack of fresh water, the hard climate and the

dependence on external supplies have always been constraints for even

temporary inhabitants. It is clea r that Serpents’ Island has never

sustained human life on a permanent basis.

10.51. This fact has been averred from the most remote antiquity. Serpents’

Island, known to the ancients under the name of “Leuce” or “the White”

in Greek, is said by Flavius Arrianus to have been “empty with

people” TPF1FPand Philostratus points out that “no one could build up a

272
dwelling here, either Greeks or Barbarians” TPF PTIn Res gestae, the Roman

historian Ammianus Marcellinus refers also to Serpents’ Island (Leuce),

as “the Leuce island with no inhabitants” (“ insula Leuce sine

273
habitatores”). TPF FPT

274
10.52. Dionisus Perigenet mentions the “deserted valleys of the island” TPF , while

Scylacis Caryandensis talks about Se rpents’ Island as an “island [...],

275
barren, it is true…” TPF FPT

10.53. The Romanian historian George Popa concludes a careful archaeological

study as follows:

“the soil which was exposed to natural influences from

each and every direction was not able to produce enough

food for families. Had Serpents’ Island become a

TP1PT Periplus Ponti Euxini , 32. Quoted by George Popa, Λευκη. Insula Şerpilor (Λευκη.

Serpents’ Island), in the Romanian Magazine for History, Archaeology and Philology, published
by the “I.V. Socecu” Publishing House, Bucharest, 1894 (Annex RM 44), p. 15.
272
TP PT Heroica. Quoted by George Popa, Λευκη. Insula Şerpilor (Λευκη. Serpents’ Island), in
the Romanian Magazine for History, Archaeology and Philology, published by the “I.V. Socecu”

Publishing House, Bucharest, 1894 (Annex RM 44), p. 19.
TP3PT Res gestae, XXII.8. Quoted by George Popa, Λευκη. Insula Şerpilor (Λευκη. Serpents’

Island), in the Romanian Magazine for History, Archaeology and Philology , published by the
“I.V. Socecu” Publishing House, Bucharest, 1894 (Annex RM 44), p. 10.
TP4PT Dionisus Perigenet, Orbis Descriptio. Quoted by George Popa, Λευκη. Insula Şerpilor

(Λευκη. Serpents’ Island), in the Romanian Magazine for History, Archaeology and Philology ,
published by the “I.V. Socecu” Publishing House, Bucharest, 1894 (Annex RM 44), p. 11.
275
TP PT Scylacis Caryandensis, Periplus, 68. Quoted by George Popa, Λευκη. Insula Şerpilor
(Λευκη. Serpents’ Island), in the Romanian Magazine for History, Archaeology and Philology ,

published by the “I.V. Socecu” Publishing House, Bucharest, 1894 (Annex RM 44), p. 10.
163 permanent residence, ancient relics, such as vessels,

statues etc., would have been thus destroyed and it is sure
that the great quantity of Roman-Greek coins would have

disappeared further to land cul tivation. First, the fear of
Achilles, then the fear of snakes and poverty, together with

uncertainty have always prevented people to settle their
276
dwellings on this solitary island.” TPF FPT

10.54. Frequent mentions of Serpents’ Island during the ancient times seem to

have been related to its presumed sacr ed character. It was regarded as a

holy place, and a series of tabo os, which confirm its uninhabited

character, are said to have been created in relation to it. Thus, Ammianus

Marcellinus underlines the fact that every sailor landing on the island had

to go back on his ship in the eveni ng, as it was said that spending the

night time there could put one’s life in danger. TPFFPT

10.55. Philostratus wrote that “it was absolutely forbidden for any woman to set

foot on the island.” He thus told the story of a young woman brought on

Serpents’ Island by a merchant, at Achilles’ request. Knowing the

interdiction, the merchant expressed its surprise at Achilles’ wish, but he

nevertheless fulfilled his task. After leaving the maid on the island, he

could hear her desperate cries, "as Achilles was tearing [her] apart in a
278
thousand pieces." TPFFPT

10.56. The reluctance of the anci ent people to step onto Serpents’ Island is also

mentioned by George Popa, in hi s 1894 monographic study, quoting the

philosopher Maximus of Tyr, who, in his work, Disertatio XV, 7, states

276
TP PGeo Prgea, Λευκη. Insula Şerpilor ( Λευκη. Serpents’ Island), in the Romanian
Magazine for History, Archaeology and Philology , published by the “I.V. Socecu” Publishing
House, Bucharest, 1894 (Annex RM 44), p. 29.
TP7P“ Vesperi repetunt naves: aiunt enim, non sine discrimine vitae illic quemquam

pernoctare” in Res gestae, XXII.8. Quoted by George Popa, Λευκη. Insula Şerpilor (Λευκη.
Serpents’ Island), in the Romanian Magazine for History, Archaeology and Philology, published
by the “I.V. Socecu” Publishing House, Bucharest, 1894 (Annex RM 44), p. 10.
278
TP PT Heroica. Quoted by George Popa, Λευκη. Insula Şerpilor (Λευκη. Serpents’ Island), in
the Romanian Magazine for History, Archaeology and Philology, published by the “I.V. Socecu”
Publishing House, Bucharest, 1894 (Annex RM 44), pp. 20-21.

164 that “no man willingly goes there, but in order for him to make
279
sacrifices.” TPF FPT

10.57. In 1837, the English author Edmund Spencer confirmed the ‘magical’

character of Serpents’ Island. Thus, he wrote that Serpents’ Island

“appears to have been an object of great interest to the
ancients. Some affirm it was sacred to Achilles, and given

him by Thetis: at all events, it contained his statue, and a
temple dedicated to his wors hip. Pindar called it the
Conspicuous Island: Euripides, the White shores of

Achilles; while Strabon and Arrien described it as Leuce,
the White Island, name that it still retains, in conjunction

with its modern appellation, “Serpents’ Island.” Various
absurd reports and traditions are current among the Greek,
Russian and Turkish mariners that navigate this sea; the

most generally credited being, that it is infested by
supernatural serpents of enormous size, which keep guard

over boundless treasures, and devour every human being
who has the temerity to land. St range to say, we find in the
records of Ammianus Marcellinus, that a similar belief

existed even in his days. So firmly, indeed, is this
superstitious opinion impresse d upon the mariners of the

Black Sea at the present time, that not a single man
belonging to the crew of any ship would venture to trust his
safety to the mercy of the hissing inhabitants of Serpents’

Island. And it is not, I believe, on record, that any traveller,
however daring, has performed th e exploit of exploring it,
notwithstanding the tempting f acility offered by the water

being twenty fathoms deep w ithin a cable’s length of the
shore” TPFF.T

10.58. This feeling towards Serpents’ Island is reported to have lasted until

modern times. Edward Daniel Clarke, remarked that

“An opportunity rarely occurs in which ships can lie-to in

order to visit it; and, if this was to happen, not a man of any

TP9PT George Popa, Λευκη. Insula Şerpilor ( Λευκη. Serpents’ Island), in the Romanian
Magazine for History, Archaeology and Philology , published by the “I.V. Socecu” Publishing
House, Bucharest, 1894 (Annex RM 44), p.14.
280
TP PT Edmund Spencer, Travels in Circassia, Krim, Tartar y, &c., including a stream voyage
down the Danube, from Vienna to Constantinople and round the Black Sea, in 1836, London,
Henry Colburn, Great Marlborough Street, 1837) (Annex RM 54), p. 214-215.
165 of their crews would venture on shore; […] neither is it
281
known that any traveller ever ventured here[…].” TPFFPT

10.59. This very status of sacredness attr ibuted to Serpents ’ Island should be

perceived as testimony to the special nature of this maritime feature –

which was never regarded as being able to sustain a common day-to-day

existence. No domestic settlements are re ported to have developed on

Serpents’ Island. The only relics found are of a religious kind, such as

tribute pottery, objects honouring Achille s, sacrifice vessels etc., while

the only construction (the temple dedicated to Achilles) served similar

purposes.

10.60. The situation of Serpents ’ Island is curiously sim ilar to the situation of

Filfla – the islet that, in the decision of this Court in Libya/Malta case

was referred to as a rock and de nied any entitlements to maritime

282
areas. TPF FPOn Filfla, a Christian chapel, dedicated to the Assumption of
th
Our Lady, was built inside a small cave, in the 14 P Pcentury.

10.61.As shown above, Serpents’ Island has never provided the necessary

conditions for normal daily living. The tough environment preventing

283
people to settle there, which wa s remarked by ancient witnesses TPF PT

continued to be pointed out by modern sources, as well.

10.62.A volume published in 1876 presents various pieces of information

related to Serpents’ Island. The au thor, who wrote under the pen-name

of Cyrille, tells the story of several Turkish sailors shipwrecked on

Serpents’ Island, whose adventures show that Serpents’ Island could not

ensure even survival at subsistence level:

TP1PT Edward Daniel Clarke, Travels in various countries of Europe, Asia and Africa, Part the

First, Russia, Tartary and Turkey, Cambridge, Printed at the U niversity Press by H. Watts, 1810,
p. 649-650 (Annex RM 47).
TP2PT See para. 8.40 of this Memorial.
283
TP PT As George Popa pointed out in his well documented study about the Serpents’ Island,
“There were no inhabitants on Leuce, according to all the quoted writers”. See George Popa,
Λευκη. Insula Şerpilor ( Λευκη. Serpents’ Island), in the Romanian Ma gazine for History,

Archaeology and Philology, published by the “I.V. Socecu” Publishing House, Bucharest, 1894
(Annex RM 44), p. 20.
166 “This island was once dedica ted to Achilles. Wonderful
stories about it were still told in the last century, as the

following:

Returning from Crimea, a Turkish ship captain named

Hassan, was thrown on Serpents’ Island by a terrible
storm. The shipwrecked, in num ber of twenty-five, built

shuts with the wrecks of their ship. They spent a whole

year in these desolated places, fighting nature’s elements
and supporting their miserable existence with flesh of big

fish, the capture of which often put them in great danger.
Thus, captain Hassan was one day engaged in a terrible

fight against a shark wei ghing nine hundred pounds. The
cast-away ended by eating one another; there survived

only four of these misfortuned, when the arrival of a ship 284
saved them from hopelessness and a certain death…” TPFFPT

10.63. For his part, the author describes Serpents’ Island as follows:

“this small sterile rock, situat ed almost at equal distance
285
from the mouths of Kilia and Sulina…” TPF.PT

10.64. The barren remoteness of Serpents’ Island represented an economic and,

moreover, a psychological argument for pe ople not to settle permanent

dwellings there. Its ha rsh living conditions, as well as the impression of

loneliness it created, are de scribed by most of its visitors – scientists,

journalists, border patrols, writers etc. Thus, G. Raşcu talked in his 1940

monographic study on Serpents’ Island about

“this mysterious rock beaten by the waves […] that

nobody ever visits, that nobody ever asks about and that is
reproduced not even on a posta l card in the bookstores of

Cetatea Albă or Constanţa […]

The appearance of the island, wh en one approaches it, is
impressive; huge rocks broken by the waves, with a

parallel and inclined stratification, cracked and blacken by
a moss of moisture and time. […] One would find himself
286
as isolated as on the Robinson’s island…” TPF FPT

TP4PT Cyrille, From Paris to Serpents’ Island across Romania, Hungary and the Mouths of the

Danube (De Paris à l’Île des Serpents à travers la Roumanie, la Hongrie et les bouches du
Danube), « Ernest Leroux » Publishing House, Paris, 1876 (Annnex RM 55), p. 62.
TP5PT Ibid., p. 63
TP6PT George Rascu, Insula Serpilor (Serpents’ Island), “Atelierele Grafice Emil Grabovschi”

Publishing House, Chişinău, 1940 (Annex RM 46), p. 3, 5, 7.
16710.65. In the same vein, Ion Simionescu noticed the hard living conditions on

Serpents’ Island, that provided a tough environment even for the animals

brought there:

“Only the guardian of the lighthouse, as well as a couple
of border patrols can be found there, living like exiled

people. There are also 2-3 goats and a poor donkey, master
of the place, but unhappy to be often starving, living, most
287
of the time, on an empty stomach [...].”(emphasis added) TPF FPT

10.66. And, as a conclusion to his trip on Serpents’ Island, this writer noted:

“Desolate now, as it has alwa ys been, it is not tempting.
Alone in the openness of the Bl ack Sea, at the dangerous

entrance of the area where the eastern wind raises
dangerous waves, the rocky is land is linked with the rich
imagination of the few navigators losing their way at the

mouths of the Istrus. [...] Toda y, it sits as deserted as it
was at the time of the Herodotus’ trips. At various, rather
long periods of time, a small ship brings the necessary

supplies to the lighthouse keeper, to the patrols taking care
of the light... The hugeness of the sea surrounds them.

Only the white restless sea-gulls accompany their
loneliness, shouldn’t their crie s be numbed by the furious
torment of the waves, pouri ng over the island a rain of

salted water, as perni288us to the life of the plants as it is
the burning sun.” TPFFPT

10.67.Moreover, according to the researches undertaken in 1938 by the

representatives of the Romanian Ministry for Home Affairs in a report to

the Minister for Home Affairs,

“the influence of Serpents’ Is land, situated on rocks, 40

meter high above the sea level, and 43 kilometres and 200
metres away from the last lighthouse of the Sulina dyke

and almost 50 kilometres away from the shores of the
mainland, which can never be seen, and with the
perspective of seeing and hear ing only the rhythm of the

waves, almost always stormy and accompanied by
continuously changing winds, (the influence) is damaging,
affecting the human nervous system, especially in the case

of the nervously sensitive people.

287
TP PT Ion Simionescu, Pitorescul României (The Picturesque of Romania), volume I, Între
Dunăre şi mare (Between the Danube and the Sea), “Cartea Românească” Publishing House ,
1942 (Annex RM 43), p. 63-64.
TP8PT Ibid., p. 65
168 These nervously sensitive peopl e are likely to be affected

by a specific debility, consis ting of a general depression,
nervous breakdowns, psychical asthenia, insomnia, etc.
The only preoccupation they can have in this monotonous

and irritating seclusion is but the continuous
preoccupation to save themselves from this sepulchre of
human oblivion.

Only the sea-gulls, with their wailing cries, comprising the
large population of the island to wards its edges, together
with the various species of birds can bring them a small

ray of hope.
The influence of the marine currents and of the salted air
of the island is even worse as far as the human respiratory

system is concerned, provoking lung respiratory
modifications, dry and liquid pl eurisies, these diseases
being likely to aggravate if the staying on the island of

those aff289ed is prolonged, and even likely to provoke
death.” TPFFPT

10.68. The extreme harshness of human lif e on Serpents’ Island is caused not

only by the scarcity of supplies or by its isolating position, but also by the

capriciousness of its climate, characterised by strong winds, often storms,

and, generally, by more than uncomfortable temperatures during summer

or winter. Thus, as R.I. C ălinescu mentioned in his monographic study,

further to direct experience and observations,

“Hurricanes are not rare at all on Serpents’ Island,
especially during winter.

Thus, on Christmas day (25.XII.1930), the lighthouse

tower, otherwise a very solid construction, shifted from its
place and the wall of the building it was attached to broke
– just like the lightening conductor”.

“Fog is a frequent phenome non in winter and spring,
presenting great hazards for na vigation. In foggy weather,
in 1914 a British ship of the Weston Company went ashore

on the rocks of the island, failing to notice the light of the
lighthouse installed here.” TPFFPT

10.69. These remarks are endorsed by the Ukrainian media, as shown by several

press reports with respect to the conditions on Serpents’ Island, published

TPPT Report addressed to the Romanian Minister for Home Affairs with respect to Serpents’
Island, drafted and signed by a Po lice Inspector and by the M.D. in chief of the Ministry for

Home Affairs, (indecipherable signatures), 14 May 1938 (Annex RM 40).

169 in the Ukrainian press. As the Ukrainian newspaper Golos Ukraini

noticed,

“The only entertainment of the people on the island is,
during winter, the TV, while during summer, bathing in

the sea and picnics. ‘Once th e bad weather arrives, the
island is hit by winds from everywhere, so that we have to

protect our windows with shutte rs, so that they would not
be broken.’ Because of the bad weather and the storms, all

supplies, including potable wa ter, are brought from the
291
continent, to last for a several months.” TPF FPT

10.70.As a further example in this re spect, another Ukrainian journalist

mentions, in Odeskie Izvestia , the difficult weathe r conditions on the

Island, pointing out “the strong marine winds”, as well as the fact that,

292
“during summer, the soil can reach temperatures as high as 50°-60°C.” TPFFPT

10.71. The difficult conditions on Serpents ’ Island had already been recognised

in an article published on 19 Augu st 1995, where the author, Anatoli

Murahovski, shares this appreciation:

“Serpents’ Island is a difficult place to live. There are no

plants, with the exception of sparse grass and some thorns

and, of course, there is no drin king water. In the summer
the sun is merciless, while in the winter a piercing wind
293
blows…” TPFFPT

10.72.In the same vein, the author of an article published in the 2002

Vecherniia Odessa newspaper draws the conclusion that “nowadays,

Serpents’ Island represents: 18 ha of rocky land, brambles and one tree

[…]”, to further complete her “definition” with the following elements:

“Serpents’ Island represents also the romanticism of this
rocky island and the tough lif e of people living here; the

TP0PT R.I. Calinescu, Insula Şerpilor. Schi ţă monografic ă (Serpents’ Island. Monographic

Study), published in the Analele Dobrogei magazine, “Glasul Bucovinei” Publishing House,
Cernăuţi, 1931 (Annex RM 6), p. 13-15.
TP1PT Article titled “A patch of Ukraine between sea and sky”, published in the Ukrainian
newspaper Golos Ukraini, issue no. 78 (3078), of 23 April 2003 (Annex RM 51).
292
TP PT Article titled “The number of the islanders is going to increase”, published in the
Ukrainian newspaper Odeskie Izvestia , issue no. 192 (2766), of 16 October 2003; author:
Vladislav Kitik (Annex RM 56).
293
TP PT Article titled “The Serpents’ Island is the most important island in the Black Sea and it
belongs to Ukraine”, published in the Ukrainian newspaper Zerkalo Nedeli, issue of 19 August
1995; author: A. Murahovski (Annex RM 57).

170 294
service, in which one year counts as two, is difficult.” TPF FPT

(emphasis added).

10.73. Considering all these natural circumstances which do not favour a normal

human habitation, it is not surprising that Serpents’ Island has never been

inhabited by a permanent population.

10.74. This later fact is acknowledged, for example, by the 1920 Black Sea

Pilot, published in London, for the H ydrographic Department of the

Admiralty, which, when giving details about Serpents’ Island, points out

that

“The only people on the island are the light-keepers and
295
the sentries to whom provisions are sent monthly.” TPF FPT

10.75. In 1930, the eighth edition of the same Black Sea Pilot confirms that “the

296
only people on the island are the light-keepers and some soldiers” TPF PT

10.76. This fact is revealed by other source s, too, with respect to various other

years. Thus, the 1933 edition of the Great Soviet Encyclopaedia

mentioned that "except for the guar dians of the lighthouse and of the

Romanian border patrols, there is no population" TPF Fon Serpents' Island.

According to G. Popa, in 1891 the lighthouse was guarded by one

298
sergeant and six soldiers TPF . In April 1931, there we re one corporal and

three soldiers (and two other soldiers , who had been sent here by way of

punishment). TPF FPT

TP4PT Article titled “Serpents’ Island of the Kilia District” , published in the Ukrainian

newspaper Vecherniia Odessa, issue no. 27 (7565) of 19 February 2002; author: Dora Dukova
(Annex RM 58).
295
TP PT The Black Sea Pilot comprising the Dardanelles, Sea of Marmara, Bosporus, Black Sea,

and Sea of Azov , Seventh Edition, 1920, London, printed by the Hydrographic Department,
Admiralty, p. 218 (Annex RM 59).
296
TP PT The Black Sea Pilot comprising the Dardanelles, Sea of Marmara, Bosporus, Black Sea,
and Sea of Azov , Eighth Edition, 1930, London, printed by the Hydrographic Department,

Admiralty, p. 168 (Annex RM 60).
TP7PT The Soviet Great Encyclopaedia, Volume 27, Moscow, 1933, p. 74 (Annex RM 41).
298
TP PT George Popa, Λευκη. Insula Şerpilor ( Λευκη. Serpents’ Island), in the Romanian
Magazine for History, Archaeology and Philology , published by the “I.V. Socecu” Publishing

House, Bucharest, 1894 (Annex RM 44), p. 5.
TP9PT R.I. Calinescu, Insula Şerpilor. Schi ţă monografic ă (Serpents’ Island. Monographic

Study), published in the Analele Dobrogei magazine, “Glasul Bucovinei” Publishing House,
Cernăuţi, 1931 (Annex RM 6), p. 50.

17110.77. As far as the civil staff is concerne d, whose duty was to take care of the

lighthouse, they are reported to be ve ry few, as well: there were four in

1891 TPF0 PTthree in 1931 TPF , three in 1933 TPF PT

10.78. All the elements presented above clearly demonstrate that Serpents’

Island is inappropriate for human ha bitation. Its only inhabitants were

(and still are) the guardians of the lighthouse, soldiers or customs officers

posted on it. As Kolb points out, the criterion of “human habitation” of a

rock implies that it be capable of sustaining “human groups steadily

rooted and organized”, which “have the intention to establish there a

303
much more global connection” TPF FPThis view is larg ely shared by other

304
commentators TPF PTClearly, Serpents’ Island does not meet this criterion.

10.79. At a time when human life can be supported in outer space for long

periods, it is in theory possible, assuming the expenditure of enough

resources and money, to permit human survival on any area marginally

above sea level. It cannot be the co rrect interpretation of Article 121(3)

that a maritime formation falls outsid e its scope as long as there is some

area where a human being can survive above water level when supported

by supplies from the mainland. And that is all that Serpents’ Island is – a

barren outcrop that supports nothing and produces nothing.

TP0PT George Popa, Λευκη. Insula Şerpilor ( Λευκη. Serpents’ Island), in the Romanian

Magazine for History, Archaeology and Philology , published by the “I.V. Socecu” Publishing
House, Bucharest, 1894 (Annex RM 44), p. 5.
TP1PT R.I. Calinescu, Insula Şerpilor. Schi ţă monografic ă (Serpents’ Island. Monographic

Study), published in the Analele Dobrogei magazine, “Glasul Bucovinei” Publishing House,
Cernăuţi, 1931 (Annex RM 6), p. (47).
302
TP PT Document no. 2093/345, of 10 August 1933, issued by the Technical Service of the
European Danube Commission, Sulina, General Department of the National Archives, European

Danube Commission, S. G., 364/1929-1939, p. 127 (Annex RM 61).
TP3PT R. Kolb, L’interprétation de l’article 121, paragraphe 3, de la Convention de Montego

Bay sur le droit de la mer : Les rochers qui ne se prêtent pas à l’habitation humaine ou à une vie
économique propre, A.F.D.I., vol. XL, 1994, p. 906.
TP4PT See e.g. G.Gidel, Le droit international public de la mer. Le temps de paix, Tome III, La

mer territoriale et la zone contiguë, Sirey, Paris, 1934, p. 684 ; S. Karagiannis, Les rochers qui ne
se prêtent pas à l’habitation humaine ou à une vie économique propre et le droit de la mer, 29

Revue belge de Droit international, 559 (1996), p. 572; J.M. van Dyke, R.A. Brooks,
Uninhabited Islands: Their Impact on th e Ownership of the Oceans’ Resources, 12 Ocean

Development and International Law 265 (1983), p. 286.
172 (iv) Serpents’ Island is incapable of sustaining any economic life of its own

10.80. As shown above, Serpents’ Island has never had a settled population.

Only military and similar personnel have ever been stationed there, and

only because they are obeying orders to be there. It has never had any

industrial or agricultura l activity. It has no har bour or other natural

feature that would make it useful fo r trade. No natural resources have

been discovered on Serpents’ Island. Moreover, access to the island is

very difficult.

10.81. Leaving aside some other recent artificial activities promoted by Ukraine
305
in view of the present case, TPFFthe only activities of any sort which have

taken place on Serpents’ Island have been military and the keeping of the

lighthouse. Even those very special and limited activities must be

sustained at great cost and difficu lty and are dependent exclusively on

external supplies.

10.82. Human survival on Serpents’ Island depends on the continual importation

not only of water but of all other supp lies. The people sent to live there

(military and lighthouse staff) have to be continually provided with

supplies in order to be ab le to survive and this s upply itself is extremely

difficult.

10.83. This is no new phenomenon. A memorandum of the Inspectorate for

Harbour Navigation (issued at Gala tz, on 12 October 1894) reports that,

up to 16 April 1894, the ship Bistriţa remained anchored at Sulina, “as it
306
was used for the inspection and for the supplying of Serpents’ Island”. TPFFPT

There are also reports about a certain ship Griviţa in charge with

307
supplying Serpents’ Island. TPFFPT

305
TP PT See paras. 10.101-10.131 of this Chapter below.
TP6PT Documente privind istoria militar ă a poporului român - iu lie 1891-decembrie 1894
(Documents on the Military History of the Romanian People – July 1891 – December 1894) ,

307tura Militară (Military Publishing House), Bucharest 1976(Annex RM 62), p. 431.
TP PT Documente privind istoria militar ă a poporului român - iu lie 1891-decembrie 1894
(Documents on the Military History of the Romanian People – July 1891 – December 1894) ,
Editura Militară (Military Publishing House), Bucharest 1976(Annex RM 62), p. 457.

17310.84. A hard frost was mentioned to have happened in 1929, when the sea was

frozen for several kilometres around Serpents’ Island, compelling the

civil and military staff to remain there completely isolated for a two

month period. Fortunately they had a sufficient store to survive until the
thaw, though with considerable hardship. TPFFPT

10.85.In 1935, in the Romanian newspaper Curentul, the journalist I.

Dimitrescu referred to the fact th at the lighthouse keepers and the

soldiers posted on Serpents’ Island had to bring all necessary supplies for

their stay there. Further, the same journalist introduced a terrible image

of the living conditions on Serpents’ Island:

“There is no need to spend money at the movies should you
want to offer yourself a show of a remarkable nightmare,

populated by horrible adventures and sadistic tortures.
Neither ‘The Count of Monte-Cristo’, nor ‘The Vampire of
Prague’ will overdo it, with th eir macabre festive scenes –
this is the tragic experience of the sailors that the hazardous

fate punished to the forced seclusion on Serpents’ Island, our
modest colony in the East!...
You read in the yesterday newspaper the dramatic
description of Mr. Gh. Economu, recently returned from a

study expedition on the little is land, and you are stunned: the
existence of the five sailors an d of the three guardians of the
lighthouse is not, today […] more compassionate than that of
the invaded people during the time of the Volsces.

One month leave – in order fo r them to recover from the
neurosis of solitude – this is the only gratification awarded to
the lighthouse guardians after three months of vigilant
guarding; for the whole period of this guarding – that

definitely looks like the stayi ng in a penitent iary cell – the
miserable convicts will bring, wh en they settle there, the
necessary supplies, the corn flour for the whole trimester.

Once left among serpents by the ship of the European
Commission, the poor guardians are forgotten in the
subsistence of hurricanes and hail : if one of them gets sick,
he will treat himself with lizar d juice or reptile mush – just

like during the brave times of Pyrrhus…
A heavy piece of the lighthouse fell and broke the leg of
one of the guardians, about th e middle of last month: for
three nights in a row have the comrades of the misfortunate

begged, through light signals, fo r the urgent help of the
maritime bosses in Sulina. Three days later, when gangrene

TPPRa.Ili.nescu, Insula Şerpilor. Schi ţă monografic ă (Serpents’ Island. Monographic
Study), published in the Analele Dobrogei magazine, by “Glasul Bucovinei” Publishing House,
Cernăuţi, 1931 (Annex RM 6), p.15.
174 had already begun to attack the metatarsus of the wounded,
here came the leisurely ship of the European
309
Commission!” TPF FPT

10.86. On 8 June 1944, a group of Romanian soldiers were sent to Serpents’

Island, with a view to rebuilding the lighthouse building, damaged by

bombing. One of these militaries , major (retired) Silviu Stef ănescu recalls

that they “remained there until 20 August 1944, when, by a radiogram,

[they] informed about the fact that [they] had no more food and that,

especially, the water supplies were ge tting shorter”. Two days later they

310
were rescued by a ship that brought them all to Sulina. TPF FPT

10.87. As mentioned before, in 1920, the European Danube Commission referred

inter alia to the lighthouse on Serpents’ Island. In this context it noted:

“ the transport difficulties to the island which is a lonely
rock situated at about 24 nautical miles from the mouth of
311
Sulina ” TPF FPT

10.88. Similarly, the Romanian authors Cucu and Vlăsceanu describe the hazards

for ships trying to land there:

“At first sight, it would seem that these depths are
favourable for the ships anchor ing even near the shore,

except in the north, but in fact this is far from the truth.
Firstly, the mentioned gulfs are extremely large and offer

no convenient shelter for the sh ips, secondly, a specific
petrographic structure of the island, under the action of the

waves, causes the crumbling of the shores. The island is
surrounded by fragments of st one, and bigger and smaller

blocks, submerged or risen above the water, can be seen
everywhere. Bigger clusters of rocks can be seen

especially in the NW, SE, NE and SW of the so-called

TPPT Article titled “Geamanduri în uniform ă” (“Buoys in Uniform” ), published in the
Romanian newspaper Curentul, issue 2795 of 14 November 1935; author Ion Dimitrescu (Annex

RM 63).
TPPT Major (retired) Silviu Ştefănescu, Din amintirile veteranilor (War Veterans’ Memories),
published in Revista de istorie militară (Military History Magazine), issue no 3 (31)/1995, p. 48

311nex RM 10).
TPPT Document no. 5/0 of 28 June 1920, issued by the European Danube Commission,
General Department of the National Archives, Galatz, Romania, European Danube Commission,
S. G., 82/1919-1923 (Annex RM 39), pp.7,8.

175 quadrilateral. No ship dares to come nearer than 50 meters
312
from the shores…” TPF FPT

10.89. The difficulties of getting ashore Serp ents’ Island are also mentioned by

G. Rascu:

“the way to the island is usually hard to go on […]. The
ship needs to anchor in the open sea, as the submarine

rocks allow only for a boat to ashore and, what is more,
313
only when the weather is calm.” TPF FPT

10.90. The danger of getting near the island was noted, by Mihai Draghicescu,

as well, in The History of the Main Landmarks on the Danube, from the

Tisa’s Mouth to the Sea and on the Sea Shore, from Varna to Odessa:

“Getting near and landing on the island is dangerous to

ships, because of the shallow waters and of the rocks
spread under the water up to a great distance around. [...]

[B]ecause of its reduced dimensions, the island cannot
shelter ships against the waves.” TPF4FPT

10.91. Ion Simionescu, in his Picturesque of Romania, also notes:

“the landing of the small ship is difficult. It is compelled to

anchor in the open sea, as the stone fangs, blackened by
the sea-weed dressing are dangerous needles even for the

thicker belly of a torpedo boat. The broken skeleton of a
ship, thrown by the storms much too near the island urges
315
to precaution.” TPF FPT

10.92.These hard conditions of living, ar tificially mainta ined by external

supplies of drinking water and food are confirmed by articles recently

published in Ukrainian newspapers, wh ich stress that the only possible

regular link with the outside world is by helicopter:

312
TP PT Vasile Cucu, Gheorghe Vl ăsceanu, Insula Şerpilor (Serpents’ Island), „Viaţa
Românească” Publishing House, Bucharest, 1991 (Annex RM 5), pp. 15-16.
TP3PGeR orascu, Insula Serpilor (Serpents’ Island), “Atelierele Grafice Emil Grabovschi”

Publishing House, Chişinău, 1940 (Annex RM 46), p. 4-5.
TP4PMD irai ăghicescu, Istoricul principalelor puncte pe Dun ăre dela Gura Tisei pân ă la
Mare şi pe coastele m ării dela Varna la Odesa (The History of the Main Landmarks on the

Danube, from the Tisa’s Mouth to the Sea and on the Sea Shore, from Varna to Odessa),
Bucharest, 1943 (Annex RM 45), p. 491.
315
TP SIimnionescu, Pitorescul României (The Picturesque of Romania), volume I, Între
Dunăre şi mare (Between the Danube and the Sea), “Cartea Românească” Publishing House ,
1942 (Annex RM 43), p. 63.

176 “the rocky vertical shores and underwater rocks do not

permit the maintaining of regular links with the
316
continent.” TPFFPT

10.93. An article published by the Vecernia Odessa on 19 February 2002, notes:

“... Serpents’ Island represents also the romanticism of

this rocky island and the tough life of people living here;

the service, in which one year counts as two, is difficult.
On the island the heating is done by hearths, the only TV

channel that can be received is ‘Inter’, but only when the
weather is fine. The medical assistance is done by a

paramedic. But when urgent medical help is needed?

There is a helicopter, but there isn’t always the fuel for
taking off. There is a need for an energy cable and for a

communication cable, but, most of all, there is a need for
317
a landing stage.” TPF FPT

10.94. The Ukrainian daily Iug noted on 23 March 2002 that:

“The necessary transports between the island and

mainland are few and are done by a helicopter that secures
only the transport on the is land of those securing the

service on a rotational basis and only a minimum of all
318
that is needed.” TPF FPT

10.95. The 13 July 2002 edition of the same newspaper remarked that

“Right now ships can approach the island at the most 400

meters distance, and boats at 100 meters. So the goods are
brought on the island with a he licopter, which is very

expensive… In the case of a more or less serious storm

the ships cannot remain near the shore and have to take to
the open sea.” TPF FPT

10.96. Thedaily Moloda Ukraina noted on 12 September 2002 that:

TP6PT Article titled “The map of depths near Serpents’ Island – navigation of maritime ships to

the island is to be ensured by the experts of the GOSHIDROGRAFIA enterprise, of Ukraine”,
published by the Ukrainian newspaper Odesskie Izvestia, issue no. 213 (2541) of 13 November
2002, quoting Alexandr Boris, first deputy director of Ukrmorcartografia (a State-owned

317tographic enterprise) (Annex RM 64).
TP PT Article titled “Serpents’ Island of the Kilia District” , published in the Ukrainian
newspaper Vecherniia Odessa, issue no. 27 (7565) of 19 February 2002; author: Dora Dukova

(Annex RM 58).
TP8PT Article titled “The Military does not need Serpents’ Island” , published in the Ukrainian
newspaper Iug, issue no. 22 (15024) of 23 March 2002; unsigned (Annex RM 65).
319
TP PT Article titled “The apple of discord tasting like oil” , published in Iug, issue no. 51
(15053), of 13 July 2002; author: Alexandr Iurcenko (Annex RM 33).
177 “Until now, the helicopter remains the only means of
transportation for the border guards, the researchers and

the construction workers that live and work on the island.
In summer, significant supplies of drinking water and fuel

were brought, and at this moment repairs at the
administrative buildings are under way. There is a series of
problems to which a solution has not been found yet,

among which the supplying with drinkable water and the
sewage... The officials in Ki ev are surprised that the

financing of construction and setting works (which are
initiated by the capital mainly for political reasons) are left
to the local administration.” TPFFPT

10.97.Similarly, the edition of Golos Ukraini of 23 April 2003 describes

Serpents’ Island as being a

“rocky land with a surface of 1,5 square kilometres,

surrounded by sea at 12 miles from the shore, where the
links with the external world are limited to the rare
helicopter flights and the lette rs of the beloved ones...

Today on this island live around 30 people: the border
guards that service the local bo rder post, the supervisor of

the lighthouse with his wife and daughter… The island is
hit by winds from everywhere, so that we have to protect
our windows with shutters so that they would not be

broken. Because of the bad w eather and the storms, all
supplies, including potable wa ter, are brought from the
321
continent to last for several months.” TPF FPT

10.98. An article published by the daily Fakti on 6 October 2004 quotes the

radiotelegraphist Tatiana Litvinenko as saying that:

“Of course we don’t have a store […] We have to bake

bread, but there are enough food supplies [...] For the rest,
we order all the other commodities, for personal hygiene,

medicines and other necessa ry objects and the322re
brought by the emissaries of the ‘great land’.” TPFFPT

10.99. These articles are mere confirmation of a situation faced by the Ukrainian

authorities from the very beginning of their activities undertaken on

320
TP PT Article titled “The taming of the serpents”, published by the Ukrainian newspaper
Ukraina Moloda, issue no. 167 (1973) of 12 September 2002; author: M. Axaniuk ( Annex RM
50).
TP1PT Article titled “A patch of Ukraine between sea and sky” , published in the Ukrainian
newspaper Golos Ukraini, issue no. 78 (3078) of 23 April 2003 (Annex RM 51).

178 Serpents’ Island after the dismantlement of the USSR. Thus, already in

1995, Anatoli Murahovski wrote in an article published in Zerkalo

Nedeli:

“The supply of the necessary goods for the islanders has
always been a difficult task. True, before, the main burden

was on the Black See Fleet, the subunits of which

defended the island.

Now, the Ministry of Defence of Ukraine has to bear the

burden, and it lacks the means for the timely assurance of
fuel, potable water, products and other materials, while the

renting of a special barge is too expensive. There is no
stationary quay, and the special barge that served as quay
323
sunk a few years ago.” TPFFPT

10.100. The clear conclusion from all the above is that Serpents’ Island is

incapable of sustaining an economic life of its own.

(3) Ukraine’s recent activities on Serpents’ Island cannot change its

qualification as a rock within the scope of Article 121(3)

10.101. In parallel with the Romanian-Ukr ainian negotiations regarding the

delimitation of the maritime areas of the two countries in the Black Sea,

in which the relevance of Serpents’ Island is of certain importance,

Ukraine engaged in a massive attempt to mask the real nature of this

rock and to create artificial conditions for human survival on it.

10.102. In this respect, the Court’s attention is drawn to the images of Serpents’

324
Islands from the 1931 study TPF PTas well as other images dated prior to
325
1949 (e.g. Figure 21 – page 182 of this Memorial TPF), in comparison

with a recent image reproduced in the following pages ( Figure 22 –

page 183 of this Memorial).

322
TP PT Article titled “I wanted so bad to have a French perfume…and, in a fortnight, I had it,
when they brought the correspondence by helicopter”, published in the Ukrainian newspaper
Fakti, issue of 6 October 2004; author: Aleksandr Levit (Annex RM 66).
323
TP PT Article titled “The Serpents’ Island is the most important island in the Black Sea and it
belongs to Ukraine”, published in the Ukrainian newspaper Zerkalo Nedeli, issue of 19 August
1995; author: A. Murahovski (Annex RM 57).
TP4PRa.Ili.nescu, Insula Şerpilor. Schi ţă monografic ă (Serpents’ Island. Monographic

Study), published in the Analele Dobrogei magazine, “Glasul Bucovinei” Publishing House,
Cernăuţi, 1931 (Annex RM 6).

17910.103. As can be seen from these images , prior to 1949 on Serpents’ Island

there were only the lighthouse, th e huts of the light-keepers and the

soldiers posted on it, as well as the water-collection system already

mentioned. The recent pictures show, further to the already existing

elements, alleys, a pontoon and certai n additional buildings. However,

the general picture remains one of a deserted territory, arid and

inhospitable and without any faci lities to sustain a permanent

community.

10.104. Consequently, this transformation is pure appearance and bears no

relationship to reality.

10.105.In this context, it is worth mentioning that, during the bilateral

Romanian-Ukrainian negotiations, the Romanian side officially

proposed that the expert s of the two Parties should pay a visit to
326
Serpents’ Island, in order to assess in situ its natural characteristics TPFPT

While not directly rejecting this proposition, the Ukrainian side invoked

“technical reasons” and postponed indefinitely the proposed visit TPFF.T

10.106. The process of transformation began when the Ukrainian Council of

Ministers adopted Decision no. 1009, of 18 December 1995, on the

future developing of the infrastruc ture and of the economic life on

Serpents’ Island and Decision no. 1114, of 8 October 1997, on the

modernization of the infrastructure and of economic activity on

Serpents’ Island, establishing a comp lex program for the development

of the infrastructure on Serpents ’ Island. The provisions of these

decisions were furthered by Decision no 713/2002, approving the

Complex Program of Developing the Infrastructure and the carrying out

of the economic activity on the Serpents’ Island. To the Romanian

authorities’ knowledge, the texts of th ese decisions are not public; they

TP5PT See also Maps RM A 12, RM A 13, RM A 14 in the Map Atlas.
326
TP PT Notes verbales no. EVI-1/2803 dated 4 May 2004 of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of
Romania to the Embassy of Ukraine in Bucharest ( Annex RM 67) and EVI/204 dated 9 August
2004 of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Romania to the Embassy of Ukraine in Bucharest
(Annex RM 68)
TP7PT Note verbale no. 72/22-446-4290 dated 18 August 2004 of the Ministry of Foreign

Affairs of Ukraine to the Embassy of Romania in Kiev (Annex RM 69)
180 are not in the possession of the Ro manian side. They were, however,

328
mentioned in the Ukrainian media. TPFFPT

10.107.This process of transformation of Serpents’ Island envisages the

carrying out of a complex of measures such as: bringing soil, planting

trees, installing a mobile phone comm unications system, establishing a

postal office, opening a store etc. Although, as reported by the

Ukrainian mass-media, among the 66 inhabitants, there is only one
329
woman TPF, a gynaecological post has been opened.

10.108. In September 2004 (after Romania had seized the Court with the present

case), a branch of the Ukrainian ba nk “Aval” has began to function on

330
Serpents’ Island. TPF FIt is also reported that the Ukrainian authorities

have plans for the construction of ot her buildings (such as a hotel or a

museum).

328
TP PT See articles published in the Odessa-based Odeskie Izvestia, issues no. 171 (2499) of 14
September 2002 (“Serpents’ Island concerns are our concerns”; author: Aleksandr Seryi – Annex
RM 70) and 192 (2766) of 16 October 2003 (“The number of islanders is going to increase”;

author: Vladislav Kitik - Annex RM 56), and Odeskyi Vestnik, issue no. 80 (3337) of 13 April
2005 (“I find myself again at the end of the world”; author: Valentina Surnina –Annex RM 71).
329
TP PT Article titled “I wanted so bad to have a French perfume…and, in a fortnight, I had it,
when they brought the correspondence by helicopter”, published in the Ukrainian newspaper

330ti, issue of 6 October 2004; author: Aleksandr Levit (Annex RM 66).
TP PT Article titled “On the island the weather is fine”, published in the Ukrainian newspaper
Odesskie Izvestia, issue no. 238 (3056) of 14 Decembe r 2004; author: Vladislav Kitic ( Annex

RM 72).

181 Figure 21

1939 Map of Serpents’ Island
Source: Romanian Ministry of National Defense Archives

As it can be seen, the only buildings on Serpents’

Island were the lighthouse and the water-cisterns
(Romanian “Citerna”); in the north-eastern corner,
the position of the ancient ruins (Romanian
“Ruine”) is indicated Figure 22

Recent picture of Serpents’ Island

Source: the picture was taken in the Ukrainian town of Vilkove, on 27 May 2005, from a board featuring
Serpents’ Island, at the Centre for Monitoring of Navigation on the Danube

As is can be seen, in spite of the erection of new buildings, the inhospitable and arid character
of Serpents’ Island, consequently its inappropriateness for human habitation, as well as the

lack of an economic life, are evident10.109. As the Ukrainian press admits, all these activities are extremely costly:

“The main means of transportation remains the helicopter
which, to sustain the activity on the island, makes more
than 60 flights a year. Conse quently, the maintenance of
the island costs more than half a million dollars.

Why does the State consciously admit such expenses, why
has President Leonid Kuchma instructed the heads of the

Ministry of Defence, Foreign Affairs, of State Committees
for Border Guard and Geology to personally evaluate the
interest of the State in this remote, difficult-to-reach
spot?” TPFFPT

10.110.The answer to those questions is clear enough: Ukraine seeks to

artificially transform a barren rock in to an island capable of sustaining

some kind of human habitation and a limited economic life of its own in

order to entitle it to an exclusive economic zone and a continental shelf.

10.111. That aim has been avowed and explained in the Ukrainian press. Thus,

the Ukrainian newspaper Slovo in its edition of 3 May 2002, published

an article entitled “Ukraine decided to withdraw its anti-aircraft defence

from Serpents’ Island”. The content of the article is revealing with

respect to the nature of the activ ities carried out by the Ukrainian

authorities on this maritime feature:

“Ukraine decided to withdraw from Serpents’ Island the
anti-aircraft military company posted there. This

information was provided, on the occasion of a press
conference, by the head of the State Committee for the
defence of the state border, Ni kolai Litvin [...] According

to Litvin, the decision was a dopted within the framework
of the program regarding the de militarization of the island
and the creation of a civilian infrastructure. He expressed
the view that this initiative will consolidate the position of

TPPT Article titled “The Serpents’ Island is the most important island in the Black Sea and it
belongs to Ukraine”, published in the Ukrainian newspaper Zerkalo Nedeli, issue of 19 August

1995; author: A. Murahovski (Annex RM 57). Ukraine in the negotiations with Romania – that is raising
claims with respect to Serpents’ Island.” TPF FPT

10.112. In the same vein, the newspaper Stolichnye Novosti commented, in its

edition of 28 January 2003, that

“it seems that last year Uk raine found an original method
to convince the stubborn Romanians, (a method) which,

we must admit, entails significant financial investments.
Benefiting from a certain passi vity of the Romanian party

in expectance for the NATO summit, Kiev has actively
started to develop Serpents’ Is land so that it could have

more of the attributes of a real island. Thus, at the end of
the year 2002, the Cabinet of Ministers approved the
Program of developing the infrastructure and the economy

on the island and in the surrounding continental shelf, for
the years 2002-2006.

The fulfilment of this program shall transform the island in
a place suitable for human life, conferring to it features

specific for an administrative–territorial unit [...] Probably
the Ukrainian party thinks th at the Romanians, noticing
how fast Serpents’ Island is developing, shall realize that

they were wrong when they named this island, flourishing
and densely populated, a ‘rock’ […]

Ukraine should intensify not only the negotiations with
Romania, but the accomplishment of the Program of

development of the island, so that nobody could doubt that
it is an island and not a rock. Without any doubt, this is an

argument in 333 Ukrainian-Romanian boundary
dispute.” TPFF(emphasis added)

10.113. This enterprise is destined to fail quite apart from its economic un-

sustainability, and this for at least three reasons:

- the changes do not correspond to any reality;

TP2PT Article titled “Ukraine decided to withdraw its anti-aircraft defense from Serpents’
Island” published in the Ukrainian newspaper Slovo, issue no. 18 (491) of 3 May 2002; author:
Viktor Veprik (Annex RM 73).
333
TP PT Article titled “The issue of Serpents’ Island failed once again to be solved”, published in
the Ukrainian newspaper Stolychnie Novosti, issue no. 3 (248) of 28 January 2003; author:
Tatiana Visotzkaia (Annex RM 74).

185 - artificial as they are, they have only occurred after the critical date

when the dispute between the Parties had began and they are self-

serving;
- in any case, even a “transforma tion” of the island such as is

planned is not capable of having any legal effect.

10.114. Like Potemkin villages artificially built in pasteboard in order to create

an illusion of real villages, the semblance of human life maintained on

the rock is the result of artificial conditions created with a view to the

present case. They have not changed the real nature of Serpents’ Island
which has always been, and remains, a rock within the meaning of

Article 121(3): as soon as Ukraine would relax its attempts, the rock

will recover its usual natural state: that of a barren rock incapable of
sustaining human and economic life of its own:

- in the absence of fresh water supplies brought in by boat or
helicopter there would be no water for human consumption;

- in the absence of regular supp lies of food, human survival on

Serpents’ Island would be impossible for any period.

10.115. It is also to be noted that th e two above-mentioned decisions of 1995
and 1997, which initiated the proce ss of the so-called “economic

development” of Serpents’ Island, we re issued and implemented while

the Romanian authorities repeatedly expressed, during the bilateral
negotiations (regarding the 1997 Treat y on Relations), their position

concerning Serpents’ Island’ status as a rock within the meaning of

article 121(3). The Ukrainian authorities were thus well aware of

Romania’s contention that Serpents’ Island is not entitled to continental
shelf and exclusive economic zone.

10.116. Works to artificially transform Serp ents’ Island are st ill being carried
on, notwithstanding th e fact that, on 16 September 2004, Romania

seized the International Court of Ju stice with respect to the delimitation

186 of the maritime spaces of the two St ates in the Black Sea. Thus, in a

revealing article, titled “On the island the weather is fine” published by

the Odesskie Izvestia on 14 December 2004 it is stated that

“The general plan for the deve lopment of Serpents’ Island
has been approved [...] This year a transport line to the
island was opened, using the ship Kasatka, allotted by the

Ministry of Transportation of Ukraine to the State
Regional Administration of Kilia and rented by the
municipality-owned enterprise Ostrovnoe [...] Presently,

the border guards, the pers onnel servicing the lighthouse
and the scientists live permanently on the island […] An
intensive activity is conducted in order to determine the
recognition by the international community of the status of

island for Serpents’ Island . In this respect a project
elaborated following an initiative of the Regional State
Administration and of the National University “I.

Mecinikov”, together with the Ministry for Environmental
Protection of Ukraine, was fo rwarded to the board of the
European Coordinating Committee […] Unfortunately, the
process of transformation of the island could lose
334
momentum because of the lack of financing.” TPFF(emphasis
added)

10.117.Another article publ ished by the daily Vecernia Odessa in its 25

December 2004 edition, shows the extent of the Ukrainian planned

measures in relation to Serpents’ Is land, as well as the difficulties the

Ukrainian authorities are encounter ing due to the objective conditions

existing on Serpents’ Island:

“The new project of the general plan was elaborated by the
Territorial Institute “Odessgradproiect” and approved by a
decision of the State Administ ration of the Kilia District
[....] In the coastal area, they projected the construction of

the facilities for diving activitie s, for fish protection, as
well as the building of the seasonal rescuing services and a
special building for shelteri ng yachts and motor-boats. A
landing stage for small sized ships shall also be built, thus

allowing that small sized yachts and motor-boats come
near the island. The food issu e is also proposed to be

334
TPPT Article titled “On the island the weather is fine”, published in the Ukrainian newspaper
Odesskie Izvestia, issue no. 238 (3056) of 14 Decem ber 2004; author: Vladislav Kitic (Annex
RM 72).

187 solved in a new way. In the jointly managing area, they
envisage the construction of a small bakery, of general

stores [...]

V. Iarovoi mentioned that all of these are based on a very
important factor: in the first stage, the island has to be
consolidated by technical-engi neering works, its seismic

stability has to be ensured a nd the removal of pluvial and
residual waters has to be organised.” TPF FPT

10.118. These activities continued in 2005 as well. Thus, the Ukrainian news

agency MIGnews quoted Mr. Anatoliy Kinah, the first-deputy-prime-

minister of Ukraine, who, on 9 June 2005 stated that

"One of the priority tasks of the Government and of the
State, generally, is to ensu re conditions favourable to

human life and development of human activities on the
island, as well as impl ementation of economic
336
activities." TPF FPT

10.119. All these elements clearly prove an attempt at artificially altering the

natural conditions of Serpents’ Island by seeking to create an appearance

of human habitation and economic life. While not contesting the rights of

any State to implement whatever measures it may find necessary to

develop parts of its territory, Roma nia made clear in several Notes

Verbales addressed to the Ukrainian side that the measures taken on

Serpents’ Island cannot have any legal effect. Moreover, the Romanian

authorities advised the Ukrainian au thorities that such a conduct is
337
inconsistent with the principle of good faith. TPFFPT

10.120. It is generally accepted that any right can be exer cised legitimately if at

least two conditions are met. First, the right has to be exercised in

TP5PT Article titled “Changes are expected to be carried out on Serpents’ Island”, published in

the Ukrainian newspaper Vecherniia Odessa, issue no. 197-198 (8138-8139) of 25 December
2004; author: Natalia Harcenko (Annex RM 75).
TP6PT News titled "The Cabinet of Ministers w ill take care of Serpents' Island" of the
Ukrainian news agency MIGnews, available on Internet at
http://mignews.com.ua/articles/164879.html (Annex RM 76).

188 conformity with its social objec tive, the purpose for which it was

acknowledged. Second, any ri ght is to be exercise d in such a manner as

not to affect the rights of other Stat es. As Kolb wrote in an article in

2000,

“the State achieves its destiny and fulfils its functions in an
autonomy which is only relative, limited by its belonging to a

necessary community, which guarantees this common good
which is the equal respect of rights of everybody” FP38PT

The exercise of rights

“must not be anti-social, meani ng to affect the fundamental

interests of the community on which they depend (or simply
339
those of another subject)” TPF .PT

10.121. Moreover, article 300 of the 1982 UNCLOS provides for the obligation

of the States Parties to the Conve ntion to fulfil in good faith their

obligations and to exercise their rights “in a manner which would not

constitute an abuse of right”. In other words, a State Party to the 1982

UNCLOS cannot exercise it s rights established by the said document so

that it could affect the rights enjoyed by other States Parties.

10.122. In this case, it is cl ear that the objective follo wed by the programme of

development of Serpents’ Island, as stated by the Ukrainian authorities

and media, is not only to artificially create maritime entitlements, but to

create them in the detriment of the entitlements of Romania.

10.123. As D. Bowett mentioned in an article published in 1979,

337
TP PT Notes verbales of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Romania to the Embassy of
Ukraine in Bucharest no. C23/2473 dated 25 April 2002 ( Annex RM 77 ), C26/5805 dated 15

338ember 2002 (Annex RM 78) and C26/1794 dated 25 April 2003 (Annex RM 79)
TP PT Robert Kolb, La bonne foi en droit international public , Publications de l’Institut
Universitaire de Hautes Etudes Internationales – Geneva, Presses Universitaires de France, 2000,

339435.
TP PT Robert Kolb, op.cit., p. 436.

189 “The phrase ‘of their own’ [from the Article 121(3) of the

1982 UNCLOS] means that a State cannot avoid a rock being
denied both an exclusive economic zone and a shelf by

injecting an artificial economic life, based on resources from
its other land territory.” TPF FPT

10.124. Even if the need for some external support could probably be accepted,

such aid and support

“must be reasonable under the circumstances; they must not
seem the result of a malicious skill with purposes to divert the

rule on which they are based in relation with their social goal.
This idea has a different name: abuse of right. The limit of the

admissible dependence of an islet will be there where the
undertaken action would seem ab usive, account taken of its

nature aimed at turning th e effects of paragraph 3
(Rechtsumgehung)” TPF .PT

10.125. Thus, the Ukrainian conduct regardi ng Serpents’ Island can be given no

consequence on the issue of the delimitation of the maritime areas in the

Black Sea. Any other approach would contradict the principles embodied

by the 1982 UNCLOS, namely the objective of reaching an equitable

solution for the delimitation. Equity cannot be based on abuse.

10.126. At the same time, the continuous carrying out of these works, as well as

their well recognised objective – to determine Romania and this Court to

consider Serpents’ Island an island entitled to its own exclusive economic

342
zone and continental shelf TPF- represent an indirect, but clear and

eloquent, recognition by Ukraine that Serpents’ Island, according to its

TPPT D. W. Bowett, The Legal regime of Islands in International Law, Oceana Publication/

Sijthoff & Noordhoff, Cobbs Ferry/ Alphen aan den Rijn, 1979, p. 34.
TPPT « […] doivent être raisonnables dans les circonstances; il ne doivent pas paraître
l'Œuvre d'une habileté malicieuse à des fins détournant la règle sur laquelle elle se fondent de

son but social. Cette idée à un autre nom: abus de droit. La limite de la dépendance admissible
d'un îlot sera là où l'action entreprise apparaîtra abusive, vu son caractère destinée à tourner les
effets du paragraphe 3 (Rechtsumgehung )». See R. Kolb, «L'interprétation de l'Article 121,
paragraphe 3, de la Convention de Montego Bay su r le droit de la mer: Les 'rochers qui ne se

prêtent pas à l'habitation humaine ou à une vie économique propre … », A.F.D.I., vol. XL, 1994,
p. 908; see also p. 906.
TPPT It is worth mentioning that, in the bilateral negotiations on the issue of the delimitation

of the maritime areas, the Ukrainian negotiators confirmed this goal of the works carried out on
Serpents’ Island.

190 natural features, falls w ithin the scope of paragraph 3 of Article 121 of

the 1982 UNCLOS – a rock incapable of sustaining human habitation or

economic life of its own.

10.127. Recognition TPF , as a type of unilateral act, could result not only from a

344
declaration, but also from a specific conduct of a State TPF . In this case,

the development plan adopted by the Ukrainian Government was

followed by implementing activities that represent a certain State

conduct. Recognition can be express or implicit TPF PTThis has been

accepted by the Court in its Judgment in the case concerning the Right of

Passage over Indian Territory with regard to the attitude of Great Britain

towards Portugal’s sovereignty:

“The British found the Portuguese in occupation of the
villages and exercising full and exclusive administrative

authority over them. They accepted the situation as they

found it and left the Portuguese in occupation of, and in
exercise of exclusive authority over, the villages. […] The

exclusive authority of the Po rtuguese over the villages was

never brought in question. Thus Portuguese sovereignty over
the villages was recognized by the British in fact and by

implication and was subsequently tacitly recognized by
India” TPF .PT

10.128. Equally,inthe Temple case, the Court found:

“That the Siamese authorities by their conduct

acknowledged the receipt, and r ecognized the character, of

these maps, and what they purported to represent, is shown

TP3PT « Recognition means acknowledgement and acceptation by a State of a fact…» ( “ La

reconnaissance, c’est la constatation et l’acceptation par un Etat d’un état de fait ”…),
Dominique Carreau, Droit International, 8e édition, Pedone, 2004, p. 219
344
TP PT International Law Commission mentioned State conduct as one of the forms of
unilateral acts, together with declarations, proc lamations and notifications, written or oral. See
ILC Report A/52/10, 1997, para. 210; ILC Report A/53/10, 1998, para. 167.
345
TP PT «Often realized by means of an explic it act, it can nonetheless be implied from a
conduct, with the condition that this should be cl early imputable to the competent bodies of the
respective state” “Souvent effectué par voie de déclaration explicite, elle peut néanmoins résulter

d’un comportement à la condition que celui-ci soit clairement imputable aux organes compétents
de l’Etat concerné”, Pierre Marie Dupuy, Droit International Public, 7 PPedition, Dalloz, 2004, p.

346.
TP PT Right of Passage over Indian Territory (Portugal v. India), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports
1960, p. 39.

191 by the action of the Minister of the Interior, Prince Damrong,
in thanking the French Mini ster in Bangkok for the maps,

and in asking him for another fifteen copies of each of them
for transmission to the Siamese provincial Governors” TPF PT

10.129. In the Land and Maritime Boundary case between Cameroon and

Nigeria, the Court accepted the principle of implied recognition or

acknowledgment by implica tion, too. To give an example, it had been

decided that by requesting permissions to enter on the Bakassi Island,

Nigeria clearly accepted the appl ication of the 1913 Anglo-German

Agreement:

“In assessing whether Nigeria, as an independent State,

acknowledged the applicability of the provisions of the
Anglo-German Agreement of 11 March 1913 relating to

Bakassi, the Court has also taken account of certain formal
requests up until the 1980s submitted by the Nigerian

Embassy in Yaoundé, or by the Nigerian consular
authorities, before going to vis it their nationals residing in

Bakassi. This Nigerian acknowledgment of Cameroon

sovereignty is in no way dependent upon proof that any
particular official visit did in fact take place” TPF PT

10.130. The case of the Ukrainian conduct in respect to Serpents’ Island, to the

extent that its purpose consists in seeking to confer on Serpents’ Island an

unjustified entitlement to maritime areas, could be qualified as an

implicit recognition by conduct that without this at tempt Serpents Island

is only a rock, not entitled to a continental shelf or an exclusive economic

zone. As “recognition has the effect to bar its author from subsequently

349
contesting the validity of the s ituation it acknowledges and accepts” TPFPT

the implicit recognition by Ukraine of the status of Serpents’ Island as a

“rock” under the 1982 UNCLOS deprives the activity of any basis. The

conduct of the Ukrainian side shows the lack of trust in the legitimacy of

TP7PT Temple of Preah Vihear (Cambodia v. Thailand) , Merits, Judgment, I.C.J. Reports

3482, p. 24.
TP PT Land and Maritime Boundary between Cameroon and Nigeria (Cameroon v. Nigeria;
Equatorial Guinea intervening), ICJ Reports 2002, judgment of 10 October 2002, para. 216.
349
TP PT « La reconnaissance [a] pour effet d’empêcher celui qui l’émet de contester
ultérieurement la validité de la situation qu’elle a pour objet de constater et d’accepter », Pierre
Marie Dupuy, Droit International Public, 7 e édition, Dalloz, 2004, p 342

192 its own claim for maritime spaces based on the characteristics of the

350
Serpents’ Island TPFF.T

10.131. It may be noted that the USSR, which seized Serpents Island for strategic

reasons, never undertook such development activities, nor did Ukraine,

for a long period of time, until the Ukrainian authorities became aware of

the importance of the issue of the legal status of Serpents’ Island.

(4) Conclusions

10.132. The following general conclusions may be drawn:

- according to its natural characteristics, Serpents’ Island is a rock

unable to support human habitation and an economic life of its own;

- due to its manifest inhabitabilit y, Serpents’ Island has never had –

and it does not have now – a permanent settled population, nor has it

ever sustained an economic life of its own; the few persons posted

there completely depend on external supplies;

- the recent attempts of the Ukra inian authorities to “develop”

Serpents’ Island have no influence on this maritime feature’s lack of

entitlement to exclusive economic zone and continental shelf and

are not opposable to Romania;

- on the other hand, by their declared goals, these attempts represent a

clear recognition of the Ukrainian side that Serpents’ Island is a rock

350
TPPT The conduct of the Ukrainian side also reinforces the opposability to Ukraine of the
“rock” statute of Serpents’ Island - as confirmed by jurisprudence, “[…] instances of State
conduct inconsistent with a given rule should generally have been treated as breaches of that rule,
not as indications of the recognition of a new rule. If a State acts in a way prima facie
incompatible with a recognized rule […] then, whether or not a State conduct is in fact justifiable
on that basis, the significance of that attitude is to confirm rather than to weaken the rule”,
Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States of
America), Merits, Judgment, ICJ Reports 1986, p.98 (para. 186).

193 that cannot sustain human habitation and has no economic life of its

own;

- moreover, the Ukrainian attempts aimed at artificially transforming

Serpents’ Island with the purpose of creating an appearance of
habitability and economic life ca nnot represent a basis for any

solution for this case;

- Serpents’ Island has no right to an exclusive economic zone or

continental shelf, which is in conf ormity with its status as a rock

falling within the scope of Article 121(3) of the 1982 UNCLOS and

with the bilateral agreements concluded between Romania and the
USSR starting from 1949.

194 CHAPTER 11

THE MARITIME BOUNDARY ACCORDING TO THE

APPLICABLE LAW

(1) Introduction

11.1. On the basis of the applicable law and agreements subsisting between the
Parties, it is proposed to consider the appropriate course of the maritime

boundary in each of the sectors set out above in Chapter 9.

(2) Sector 1: the boundary between adjacent coasts - from Point F around

Serpents’ Island and to the median line

11.2. Sector 1 is shown in Figure 23 (page 197 of this Memorial).

(a) Introduction: the primacy of agreement in maritime delimitation

11.3. Taking into account relevant existing ag reements, in force between Romania

and Ukraine, that established the firs t part of the maritime boundary between
the two States on the 12 nm arc around Serpents’ Island, the maritime boundary

in Sector 1 needs to be discussed itwo portions: the 12 nm arc surrounding

Serpents’ Island and seawards, beyond this 12 nm arc.

11.4. Turning to the first portion of Sector 1, i.e. that pa rt of Sector 1 where the

maritime boundary continues the 12 nm arc around Serpents’ Island from Point
F, the relevant principle is the primacy of agreements in matters relating to

maritime delimitation, as recognised first in the Truman Proclamation, and asnow embodied in Articles 74(4) and 83(4) of the 1982 UNCLOS. That principle

is applicable in two ways:

• first, the agreements concluded between Romania and the Soviet Union

starting in 1949, which are binding on Ukraine by way of succession,

are dispositive of the maritime bounda ry between the two States around

Serpents’ Island in the form of a 12 nautical mile arc;

• second, the principles contained in the 1997 Additional Agreement are

to be applied as between the Parties in delimiting their respective
entitlements to continental shelf and exclusive economic zones.

196Figure 23

Sector 1 of delimitation (b) The agreed boundary around Serpents’ Island

11.5. As already presented in pa ras. 4.3-4.26 this Memorial, various Romanian-Soviet

agreements (procès verbaux) concluded in 1949, 1954, 1963 and 1974

established that the maritime boundary be tween the two States followed the 12

nm arc around Serpent’s Island.

11.6. On the sketches included in the individua l Procès Verbaux of Border Sign 1439

(beacon), from 1949 TPF1Fand 1974, TPF Fas well as on the map enclosed to the 1949

353
Procès Verbal on the Description of the Border TPFFPthe boundary is clearly drawn

to a point on the 12 nautical mile arc drawn around Serpents’ Island (hereinafter

referred to by Romania as “Point B”). Point B represents the point of intersection

between the arc of circle around Serpents’ Island and th e edge of the sketch or

the map – the point where they terminate.

11.7. Neither the texts of the Procès Verbaux, nor the sketches or the map define Point

B as the final point of the delimita tion boundary between the Romanian and

Soviet maritime areas. On the contrary, both indicate that the boundary continues

on the external limit of the 12 nm arc surrounding Serpents’ Island.

11.8. Moreover, the position of Point B varies if the sketches included in the Procès

Verbaux and the enclosed map are compar ed. Indeed, the coordinates of Point B

can easily be calculated from the sketches and the map.

Point B – according to the map: 45°05'24'' N, 30°02'17'' E;

– according to the sketches: 45°05'35'' N, 30°02'12'' E.

The different positions of Point B, calculated according to documents concluded

at the same time and having the same lega l value, are an additional proof that

Point B was not meant as the final point of the maritime boundary. It simply

represented a point where the sketch and the map terminated.

TP1PT Procès Verbal of Border Sign no. 1439 (beacon ), signed at Bucharest, on 27 September 1949

352nex RM 15).
TP PT Procès Verbal of Border Sign no. 1439 (beacon), signed in Ismail, on 4 September 1974 (Annex
RM 22).
353
TP PT Map RM A 11 in the Map Atlas.11.9. The description of the boundary regulated by the September 1949 Procès Verbal

on the general description of the Romanian-Soviet border and the 1949

individual Procès Verbal of Border Sign 1439 was maintained in the 1963 and

1974 general Procès Verbaux and 1974 Pro cès Verbal of Border Sign no. 1439

(beacon). The only change which occurred was that the term “Soviet marine

boundary zone” used to describe the area around Serpents’ Island, was changed

so as to read “Soviet 12-mile territ orial sea” - in th e 1963 and 1974 general

Procès-Verbaux (but not in the individua l 1974 Procès-Verbal of Border Sign

no. 1439).

11.10. In this context, it should be noted that when the 1963 and 1974 Procès Verbaux

were adopted, the legal re gime of the water areas delimited by the agreed

boundary had changed.

11.11. When the 1949 Procès Verbaux were conc luded Romania claimed a territorial

sea of only 6 nautical miles. Romania first mentioned a 12 nm breadth of its

354
territorial sea in 1951, in the Decree no. 176 of 29 September 1951 TPFPThis was

confirmed by the provisions of the D ecree No. 39 on Regulating the Regime of

the Territorial Waters of the People’ s Republic of Romania of 21 January

1956. TPF5FThis first Romanian legislation dedicated expressly to the legal regime

of its territorial waters was adopted over six years af ter the conclusion of the

1949 Procès Verbal on 27 September 1949.

11.12. The USSR, by contrast, had already esta blished its maritime boundaries out to

areas of 12 nm by a succession of laws, starting with a law adopted in 1909,

356
which established a 12 nm breadth in relation to customs issues TPF PTFurther

regulations in this respect were adopted in 1911 (a law on fishing, dated 29 May

1911, establishing the breadth of the terr itorial sea at 12 nm), 1918 (a decree

dated 15 May 1918 on the establishment of a customs guard), 1921 (a further

decree dated 24 May 1921 reaffirming the provisions of the 1911 law) and 1923

TP4PT Decree No. 176 for the Modification of Articles 4, 120, 159 and 172 from the Decree No. 41 of

14 February 1950 Regarding the Surveillance, Order and Control of Maritime and River Navigation, in
the Official Bulletin of the People’s Republic of Romania no. 98 of 29 September 1951 (Annex RM 80).
TP5PT Decree No. 39 of the Presidium of the Great National Assembly of the People’s Republic of
Romania on Regulating the Regime of the Territorial Waters of the People’s Republic of Romania of 21

January 1956 (Annex RM 81).

199 (a decree dated 7 September 1923 on th e protection of the borders of the
357
USSR) TPF . In 1927, by the Decision of the Central Executive Committee and the

Council of the People’s Commissars of the USSR on Approval of the

Regulation on the Protection of the St ate Border of the USSR, the 12 nm

358
breadth of the territorial sea was further confirmed. TPF FArticle II paragraph 9

letter в) established that TPT

“In order to protect the Stat e border of the USSR, it is

established…

в) on the maritime boundary – the maritime area established

from the maximum low-water line, both in cases of continental

mass and islands, on a breadth of 12 miles, unless provided
359
otherwise by international conventions of the USSR.” TPF FPT

11.13. Point 1439, which constitutes the last poi nt of the Romanian-Soviet maritime

boundary the position of which is precisely defined by geographical coordinates

in the 1949 Procès Verbal and the subsequent agreements, is situated at a

distance of 9.2 nm from the Romanian baselines determined according to the

coastal situation in 1949. Mo reover, Point B is situated at a distance of more

than 12 miles from the 1949 Romanian co ast (taking into account the factual

situation of 1949 TPF PT.

11.14. Accordingly, taking into account the lega l regime of the Romanian and Soviet

territorial seas at the time of conclusi on of the 1949 Procès Verbaux, it is clear

that the maritime boundary defined by them delimited maritime areas subject to

two distinct legal regimes:

• first , it delimited the territorial seas of the two States, from the final

river border point up to a point on the maritime boundary line situated at

a distance of 6 miles (the then-breadth of the Romanian territorial sea)

from the Romanian coast as it was configured in 1949. Romania will

refer to this point as "Point A"; it is located at 45 °09'44''N and

356
TP PT See Pierre Solodovnikov, La Navigation maritime dans la doctrine et la pratique soviétiques ,
Paris, Librairie Générale de Droit et de Jurisprudence, R.Pichin et R.Drand-Auzias, 1980, p. 206
357
358PT Ibid., p. 207-209
TP PT Ibid., p. 209. See also the Decision of the Central Executive Committee and the Council of the
People’s Commissars of the USSR on Approval of the Regulation on the Protection of the State Border of

the USSR of 15 PJune 1927 (Annex RM 82)
TP9PTSee Annex RM 82.
360
TP PT See para. 11.17 of this Chapter.

200 29°53'07''E on the maritime boundary lin e delimited by the 1949 Procès

Verbal;

• second , seawards beyond Point A, through Point 1439 and Point B and

beyond them, it delimited maritime areas with different regimes: on the

one hand, the Soviet marine boundary zone around Serpents’ Island

(later referred to as territorial sea) to the north of the boundary and, on

the other hand, an area appertaining to Romania to the south of the

boundary. From the point of view of the rights enjoyed by Romania, this

area to the south of the boundary corre sponded, at that moment, to what

in modern law is referred to as a contiguous zone , an exclusive

economic zone and a continental shelf – notions that, at that time, were
361
already under debate. TTPFPTT

A presentation of thes e areas is shown in Figure 24 (page 202 of this

Memorial).

11.15. The provisions of Romanian and Soviet legislation in effect in 1949 were clear

and unequivocal and they would have b een known by the signatories of the

1949 Procès Verbaux. Moreover, the issues of the regime of maritime areas

situated beyond the territorial sea were al ready broadly debated at that time, as

the concept of continental shelf had alr eady emerged in international law, and

States had started to claim the exercise of sovereign rights and jurisdiction over

362
extended maritime areas TPF . Thus, taking into account the stage of development

of the international law of that time, the boundary agreed upon in 1949 must

have been intended not only to separate the territories of the two States (i.e.,

their territorial seas), but also mariti me areas situated beyond, where the two

States would exercise cer tain sovereign rights. Th e provisions of the 1949

Procès Verbaux are also clear and unequi vocal in this respect: this boundary is

to follow a rectangular trace between Points 1438 and 1439 through Point A and

then to continue on the 12 nm arc around Serpents’ Island.

TP1PT S ee para. 11.15 of this Chapter. T
TP2PT For instance, the Truman Proclamation was released on 28 September 1945. Other countries had

followed in 1946-1948, such as Mexico, Argen tina, Chile, Peru, Cost a Rica, Ecuador. See Digest of
International Law Volume 4, Department of State Publication 7825, Washington D.C.,1965, pp. 752-764

201 Figure 24

The Maritime Boundary Agreed in 1949
Taking into account the 1949 legal regime, this boundary separated:

- between Points 1438 and A, the territorial seas of Romania and the USSR;
- seawards of Point A, the Soviet territorial sea/“marine boundary zone around Serpents’
Island” and Romanian areas that could now be characterized as EEZ/continental shelf

20211.16. By decrees of 1951 and 1956 Romania extended the 6 nautical mile territorial

sea previously claimed to a 12 nm territorial sea. TPFFPThus, Point A lost its

relevance as the final po int of the maritime boundary separating the territorial

seas of the two States. The final point of this boundary (situated at a 12-mile

distance from the Romanian coas t on the existing boundary under the 1949

Procès Verbal and later instruments) was never established between Romania

and USSR; its position was only finally defined by the Border Regime Treaty of

2003, taking into consideration the present coastal configuration (Point F).

11.17. It is worth mentioning that, according to the coastal configuration of 1949, as

well as of 1963 or of 1974, Point F would ha ve been situated more to the west.

Indeed, the relevant point for establishing the Romani an baselines to measure

the breadth of its te rritorial sea is th e outer end of the Sulina dyke. This dyke

underwent major extension works from th e 1950s until the 1980s ; in present it
364
extends onto the sea approximately 3 km more than in 1949 TPF. Thus, according

to the factual situation of 1949, Point B was situated at a distance of more than

12 miles from the Romanian coast.

11.18. The 1949 delimitation clearly establishe d the trace of the boundary between

Points A, 1439 and B and beyond Point B, on the 12 mile arc around Serpents’

Island. The later changes of the regime of portions of the maritime waters

adjacent to the boundary did not alter th e original intention of the Parties

regarding the course of the delimitation and its significance.

11.19. It must be stressed once more that the 1949 Procès Verbaux referred to the

water area surrounding Serpents’ Island as a “Soviet marine boundary zone”,

and not as the “territorial sea” aro und Serpents’ Island. The reference to a

“territorial sea” in the delimitation docum ents only appeared relatively late in

the day in the 1963 and 1974 general Pro cès Verbaux, and was inconsistent

363
364PT See supra, para. 11.11 of this Chapter.
TP PT See the representation of the dyke in Pilotage Guidelines of the Danube River. Navigational
description of the Danube from the port of Tu rnu Severin to the port of Sulina (km.931-nm 0), published
by the Secretariat of the Danube Commission, Budapest, 1954, sketch at p. 96. with the accompanying individual Procès Verbaux relating to Point 1439 which

they purported to summarise TPF .PT

11.20. The series of agreements over the period 1949-1974 demonstrate that Romania

and the USSR accorded Serpents’ Island only a water area surrounding it

having a breadth of 12 nm, and which had the character of an all-purpose

maritime boundary. Accordingly, there existed a delimitation between Romania

and the USSR around Serpents’ Island to the effect that Serpents’ Island was

limited to a 12 nmzone, and that zones to the south of that boundary appertained

to Romania.

11.21. The undertaking by Ukraine to respect the boundary line in force on 16 June

1990 is fully applicable to all points la id down in the prior agreements. The

obligation applies fully to all poi nts around the 12 mile arc drawn around

Serpents’ Island, including those beyond Points F or B.

11.22. Neither the USSR, nor Ukraine as its successor denied the boundary fixed in the

1949 or that the instruments th at established it were in force in their relations

with Romania. The provisions of t hose instruments were confirmed by the

dispositions of the 1997 Treaty on Relations TPF Fand the Additional

367
Agreement, TPF Fas well as expressly adopted by reference in the 2003 Border

Regime Treaty. TPF FPT

365
TP PT See paras. 4.3-4.26 of this Memorial
TP6PT Art. 2 (1): “The Contracting Parties, in co nformity with the principles and norms of the

international law and the principles of the Helsinki Final Act, reaffirm that the existing border between
them is inviolable…” (see Annex RM 1).
TP7PT Art.1: “The Government of Romania and the Government of Ukraine shall conclude […] a

treaty on the regime of the state border between the two states, on the basis of the principle of succession
of states regarding borders, according to which th e proclamation of the independence of Ukraine does

not affect the existing state-border between Romania and Ukraine, as it was defined and described in the
Treaty of 1961 on the regime of the Romanian-Soviet state border and the appropriate demarcation
documents, valid on 16 July 1990 […]” (see Annex RM 2).
368
TP PT Art.1: “The State Border between Romania an d Ukraine passes on the ground as defined and
described by the Treaty between the Government of the Romanian People’s Republic and the

Government of the Union of the Soviet Socialis t Republics on the Romanian-Soviet State Border th
Regime, Collaboration and Mutual Assistance in Border Matters, signed at Bucharest, on 27 P Pof
February 1961, as well as by all its corresponding demarcation documents, the maps of the State border

between the former Romanian Peop le’s Republic and Union of the Soviet Socialist Republics, the
protocols of border signs with their sketches […]” (see Annex RM 3).

20411.23. The effect of the incorporation of the 1949 Procès-Verbal by the 1961 Border

Regime Treaty, and the adoption of the boundary delimited in that treaty and

the subsequent Procès Verbaux by the 2003 Border Regime Treaty, as well as

the undertaking by the Partie s to respect the pre-ex isting boundaries between

Romania and Ukraine constitutes a recognition that the boundary as first agreed

in 1949 is still in force as between them.

11.24. Moreover, it is commonly accepted th at maritime boundaries are subject to the

principle of stability . Thus, in the Aegean Sea Continental Shelf (Greece v.

Turkey) and the Maritime Delimitation and Terr itorial Questions between

Qatar and Bahrain (Qatar v. Bahrain), this Court affirmed that the

establishment of maritime boundaries i nvolves an element of stability and

permanence and is subject to the ru le excluding boundary agreement from

fundamental change of circumstances, and cannot be put in issue by unilateral

actions of States TPF9.PT

11.25. Ukraine has specifically accepted the prin ciple of stability. Thus, the former

Ukrainian President Mr. Leonid Kuchma conveyed in 2002 to his Romanian

counterpart Mr. Ion Iliescu, that

“any attempt to question at State-level these boundaries [formed
as a consequence of the peaceful resolutions after the Second

World War] makes real the possi bility to undermine the peace
and stability of the European House, the boundaries of which

become transparent, but remain, from the legal point of view,
determined, stable and inviolable” TPF.PT

TP9PT See Prof. Jean-Pierre Queneudec, The General Aspects of Maritime Boundaries , lecture given
on 28 September 2001 at the Genoa Conference – Panel on the Legal Aspects of Maritime Boundaries

370ganized by the Mediterranean Hydrographic Commission).
TP PT Letter of Mr. Leonid Kuchma, president of Ukra ine, addressed to Mr. Ion Iliescu, president of
Romania, on 29 August 2002 (Annex RM 83).

205 (c) Confirmation of the maritime boundary following the 12 nm arc around

Serpents’ Island in official maps produced by the USSR and Ukraine, by Romania

and by third States

11.26. The existence and acceptance of the maritime boundary established in the
vicinity of Serpents’ Island by both Parties as describe d above is confirmed by

various navigation charts issued after 1949 . Thus, official Soviet and later

Ukrainian, as well as Romanian, Bulg arian, French and German navigation

charts, issued at different points in ti me, clearly present the Romanian-Soviet,
and later the Romanian-Ukrainian maritim e boundary in the territorial sea, as

well as in the vicinity of Serpents’ Island extending beyond Point F.

11.27. In all these charts, the boundary is draw n as defined in the 1949 Procès Verbal,

stemming from the final point of the land/river border (Point 1438), following a

straight line until it reaches the 12 nm arc around Serpents’ Island (Point 1439)
and then following the arc around the island.

11.28. These charts clearly draw the boundary beyond Point F, further eastwards on
the 12-mile arc around Serpents’ Island unt il a point situated due east of the

island.

11.29. It is significant that none of these maps shows a Soviet or Ukrainian maritime

boundary extending southwards from the 12 nm arc. They either show no

maritime boundary at all or they sh ow a 12 nm maritime boundary proceeding
eastwards around Serpents’ Island.

11.30. Attached to this Memorial are 23 charts of the north-western part of the Black
Sea or of various sectors of it, issued by official authorities from the USSR (5

charts issued in 1957, 1977, 1982, 1983 and 198 5), Ukraine (3 charts, issued in

2000, 2001 and 2003), Romania (11 char ts issued in 1958, 1959, 1970, 1982,

1985, 1993, 1995, 1997, 2000 and 2003), as well as the Russian Federation (1

206 chart, issued in 1995), Bulgaria (1 chart, issued in 1993), France (1 chart,

issued in 1990) and Germany (1 chart, issued in 1991) TPFF.T

11.31. Of special significance in this regard is one map annexed and forming part of

the Turkey/USSR Continental Shelf Agreement from 1978 TPF PTThis map, based

on a Soviet chart edited in 1977, in addi tion to indicating the course of the

boundary between the Soviet Union and Turkey, clearly shows the

Romanian/Soviet boundary as agreed in 1949, including the 12 nautical mile arc

boundary around Serpents’ Island which continues round the island to almost

due east of it. As this map was registered, together with the said Agreement,

with the Secretariat-General of the United Nations, its provisions and

indications represent the official pos ition of the USSR, of which all United

Nations members have notice.

11.32. The symbols used on these charts to mark the boundary are also of importance.

Either the annexed charts use only one symbol for all boundaries they depict, or

they make use of different symbols in different situations.

11.33. In the first case, the whole trace of the boundary (be it the land, river or

maritime boundary from the last point of the river border passing on the 12-mile

arc around Serpents’ Island and to the fina l point situated on this arc east to

Serpents’ Island) is marked with the sa me symbol; most often, this symbol is

the one used to depict “international maritime boundaries”, as internationally

endorsed by the International Hydrographic Organisation TPF PT

11.34. In the second case, various symbols (as endorsed by the International

Hydrographic Organisation) are used to re flect the differences of legal regime

between various maritime areas. For instance, the Ukrainian chart entitled Black

Sea Western Coast from Odesa to Sulins’ke Mouth , published by the State

TP1PT See Map Atlas annexed to this Memorial (Maps RM A 15 to RM A 42).
372
373PT Map RM A 15 in the Map Atlas.
TP PT See International Hydrographic Organization: Monaco, International Charts Series INT1
Symbols, Abbreviations, Terrms Used on Charts , published by Bundesamt fur Seeschiffahrt und

Hydrographie, Hamburg/Rostock, 1996, p. 51.

207 374
Hydrographic Institution in Kiev, first edition, 2001 TPFFPis significant, as it does

not show only the Romanian-Ukrainian maritime boundary, but also the outer

limit of the territorial sea of Ukrain e. The symbols are unequivocal: for the

maritime Romanian/Ukrainian boundary fr om the river border, on the 12 mile

arc around Serpents’ Island till a point situated east of it, the symbol is the one

used for “international maritime boundaries”; for the outer limit of the territorial

sea, both to the north of Serpents’ Island and for the Ukrainian mainland, the

chart uses a different symbol, the one referring to a “seaward limit of territorial

sea”. A detailed presentation of the area of interest of this chart is reproduced in

Figure 25 (page 209 of this Memorial).

11.35. Some of the charts depict also the State to which the drawn maritime spaces

appertain. An example is the German chart entitled Donaudelta bis Il’i čevsk,

published by the Bundesamt für Seeschiffahrt und Hydrographie in Hamburg,

375
fifth edition, 1991 TPF ; a detailed presentation of the area of interest of this chart

is reproduced in Figure 26 (page 210 of this Memorial).

TP4PT Map RM A 23 in the Map Atlas.
TP5PT Map RM A 41 in the Map Atlas.

208 Figure 25
The 2001 Ukrainian chart titled Black Sea Western Coast from Odesa to Sulins’ke Mouth

(see also Map RM A 23)
The arc around Serpents’ Island uses, for its southern and south-eastern portions, the symbol of
“international maritime boundaries”, while for its northern and north-eastern portions the symbol

of “seaward limit of territorial sea”, as endorsed by the International Hydrographic Organization
(see, in the top right of the sketch, an extract from page 51 of International Charts Series INT1
Symbols, Abbreviations, Terrms Used on Charts, published by Bundesamt fur Seeschiffahrt und

Hydrographie, Hamburg/Rostock, 1996) Figure 26
The 1991 German chart titled Donaudelta bis Il’icevsk, published by the
Bundesamt für Seeschiffahrt und Hydrographie(see also Map RM A 41)

There are clear indications as to the appurtenance of the maritime areas surrounding
Serpents’ Island11.36. Also attached to this Memorial are o fficial Ukrainian documents regarding the

recent Ukrainian demarches of opening a navigational canal in the Danube

delta, edited by the Ministry of Tran sport and Communication of Ukraine in

2004 and 2005 and containing the official Ukrainian presentation of the

376
controversial project of building a Danube-Black Sea deep navigation canal. TPF FPT

Hard copies and electronic versions of this presentation were distributed by
377 378
Ukrainian representatives on various occasions in 2004 TPF Fand in 2005. TPF FPT

11.37. The document contains, among other images, copies of a map of the area of the

Danube delta, which (under the superim posed text boxes), shows the maritime

boundary between the two States. The map has been extracted from the

electronic presentation, and is presen ted separately with and without the

obscuring text boxes in Figure 27 (page 212 of this Memorial). Although the

map is on a relatively small scale it is cl ear that the boundary is as described in

the 1949 Procès Verbal and presented by th e other charts, and is indicated as

extending to a point on the 12 mile arc due east of Serpents’ Island.

376
TP PT Brochures Creation of the deep-water navigational canal Danube–Black Sea in the Ukrainian
part of delta of the river Danube , Ministry of Transport and Communication of Ukraine, 2004, p. 11

(Annex RM 84) and Revival of Danube-Black sea deep-water navigational channel on Ukrainian part
of delta, Ministry of Transport and Communication of Ukraine, April 2005, p. 33 ( Annex RM 85). See
also the International Commission for the Protection of the Danube River site, at

http://www.icpdr.org/pls/danubis/danubis_db.dyn_navigator.show , information on Bystroe, under the
chapter Mission Report – Ukrainian presentation. The reference to these documents in this Memorial

does not represent any endorsement by the Romanian Government regarding their contents on the
developments related to the Bystroe issue.
377 nd
T2 the.g. P PStanding Working Group of the International Commission for the Protection of the
Danube River – Vienna, 16-17 September 2004, the International Ad-hoc Meeting Regarding the Bystroe
Canal - Geneva, 21 September 2004, the Meeting of the UNESCO Man and Biosphere Program Bureau
th
– Paris, 25-29 October 2004, the 24 PPMeeting of the Standing Committee of the Bern Convention on the
Conservation of Wildlife and Natural Habitats – Strasbourg, 29 November - 3 December 2004
378
TP PT e.g. the informal meeting of the heads of delegations participating to the process of revision of
the 1948 Belgrade Convention on the regime of navigation on the Danube – Kiev, 3-4 March 2005, the

International Scientific–Practical Seminar entitled “I nternational examination of monitoring results of
realization of the first stage of the «Danube - Black Sea» Deep-Water Navigation Way and influence of
other types of economic activity on natural complexes of Danube Delta” – Odessa, 27-28 April 2005. У К Р А И Н А Соединительный канал/Connecting
channel
U K R A I N E Длина(L)= 2 km, Ширина(W(min.)) – 40
m, Глубина(D) – 3,5 m
Дата ввода в эксплуатацию – 1958 р.

Гирло БЫСТРОЕ/Mouth Bystroye
Длина(L) -3 кm, ширина (W) суд. хода –
60 m, глубина (D) – 8,4 m,проектируется

Канал СУЛИНСКОЕ ГИРЛО/ Channel
Sulina, длина (L)– 79,6 кm, ширина (W)
суд. хода – 60 m, глубина (D) – 7,3 m, дата
ввода в эксплуатацию – 1858 р.

Р У М Ы Н И Я
Канал ГЕОРГИЕВСКОЕ ГИРЛО/
R O M A N I A Channel is Sfantu Georghe, длина (L) – 104,6
кm, ширина(W) суд. хода – 50-80 m, глубина
(D)– 2,5-8,0 m, дата ввода в эксплуатацию –
Канал МЕДЖИДИЯ – НОВОДАРИ строится

/ Medgidiya –Novodari Channel, длина (L) – 26
кm, ширина(W) ( по дну ) – 80 m, глубина (D) – 7m,
дата ввода в эксплуатацию – 1988 р.
Канал ЧЕРНОВОДА – КОНСТАНЦА/

Chernovoda –ConstantsaChannel (с двумя
– 80 m, глубина (D) – 7 m, дата ввода в по дну )
эксплуатацию – 1984 р.7 m, дата ввода в

У К Р А И Н А

U K R A I N E

Р У М Ы Н И Я

R O M A N I A

Figure 27

Map of the Danube Mouths Region

Extracted from the electronic presentations on the "Creation of the deep-water
navigational canal Danube- Black Sea" (edited by the Ministry of Transport and

Communication of Ukraine), presented withand without the text boxes; the maritime

boundary around Serpents’ Island is clearly visible11.38. Also annexed to this Memorial is a brochure edited in 2004 by the Ukrainian

State-owned enterprise Ukrmorcartogr aphia. The brochure exhibits three

different images of a chart of the Black Sea produced by the enterprise, the first

one clearly indicating the course of the maritime boundary between Romania
379
and Ukraine in the vicinity of Serpents’ Island. TPFFIt is highly significant that the

brochure itself specifies (in English in the original text) that

“Ukrmorcartographia …had been established December 2, 1996 by

Order over National Agency of Marine Research and Technologies
and is the only specialized and aut horized enterprise in State, the

main goal of which is fulfilment of State tasks on production of
nautical charts…” TPF FPT

(d) Agreement as to the applicability of Article 121(3) of the 1982 UNCLOS

(Paragraph 4 (a) of the Additional Agreement)

11.39. Irrespective of the course of agreement which exists and delimits the maritime

boundary around Serpents’ Island, Ukraine has in any case recognised that

Serpents’ Island should be limited to a 12 nm arc around Serpents’ Island.

11.40. The relevant principle here is that cont ained in Article 4 a) of the Additional

Agreement, reflecting Article 121(3) of the 1982 UNCLOS. In accordance with

these agreements, Serpents’ Island is a rock which cannot sustain human

habitation or economic life of its own.

11.41. Accordingly, it has no continental shelf or exclusive economic zone of its own,

and it is not to be taken into account for the purposes of drawing the provisional

equidistance line. Instead, it is restrict ed to the 12 nm semi-enclave, which it

already possessed under the various agr eements defining the border binding on

Ukraine and which Ukraine expressly undertook to respect.

379
380PBroc(hure Annex RM 86), p. 20.
TP PT Brochure (Annex RM 86), p. 1.11.42. As underlined already, the choice of this principle as the first to be identified in

paragraph 4 of the Additional Agreement has particular significance. Evidently

the Parties were well aware of the impor tance of the issue in the delimitation,
which is obvious, considering the small size of Serpents’ Island and its location

immediately off the Danube delta, very close to the terminus of the land

boundary. Paragraph 4 (a) of the Additional Agreement put beyond question the
direct relevance of Article 121(3) to Serpents’ Island.

11.43. Detailed factual information about Serpen ts’ Island is set out above in Chapter
10. From this information it emerges that Serpents’ Island:

(1) is a rocky formation;

(2) is devoid of water sources other than rainfall, and virtually devoid of soil

and vegetation;

(3) is incapable of sustaining human life on its own;

(4) is incapable of generating any economic life of its own.

11.44. Thus, independently of any ag reement between the Parties (and a fortiori when

the actual agreements are taken into acc ount) it is clear that Serpents’ Island

falls within the meaning of Arti cle 121(3) of the 1982 UNCLOS, and
accordingly it does not generate a continental shelf or exclusive economic zone.

(e) The maritime boundary around Serpents’ Island would be the same independent
of any agreement between the Parties

11.45. The equitable character of the ma ritime boundary around Serpents’ Island, as

contended for in the previous sections, is confirmed by the fact that even if no

account were taken of the series of agreements binding on Romania and

Ukraine, the solution adopted pursu ant to Articles 74 and 83 of the 1982
UNCLOS would be the same.

11.46. Even if ( quod non) one were to disregard the various agreements between the
Parties in relation to the 12 nauti cal mile arc beyond Point F or the 1997

Additional Agreement, the maritime boundary would fall to be delimited on the

214 basis of the equidistance–special circumstances rule.

11.47. As set out in Chapter 8 above, intern ational jurisprudence and State practice

indicates that the presence of small maritime features, close to the mainland

coast of another State clearly constitu tes only a special circumstance justifying

the shifting of the provisional equidistance line.

11.48. In many cases, the equitable solution may require that a tiny maritime feature is
restricted to a maximum 12 nautical mile territorial sea, and that otherwise it is

given no effect in shifting the equidistan ce line. Indeed this solution has been

adopted for islands much more significan t that Serpents’ Isla nd, as well as for

much larger features that do not literally constitute “rocks” TPF.PT

11.49. Given the close proximity of Serpents’ Island to the adjacent coasts of Romania

and Ukraine, as well as its status of a rock falling under the provisions of

Article 121(3), it is appropriate to give Serpents’ Island no weight at all in

delimiting the continental shelf and excl usive economic zones of Romania and

Ukraine. This means that the only effect for Serpents’ Island is restricted to a 12

nm semi-enclave.

11.50.This result is exac tly the same as if effect is given to the agreements between

the Parties as to the course of the ma ritime boundary on the 12 mile arc around
Serpents’ Island, or if Se rpents’ Island is treated under the provisions of the

Additional Agreement, as an Article 121(3) rock generating no continental shelf

or exclusive economic zone.

(f) The point of departure of the maritime boundary from the 12 nm arc around

Serpents' Island

11.51. According to the 1949 Procès Verbaux, the maritime boundary was defined as

running from Point 1439 around the 12 nm arc surrounding Serpents’ Island to a

point undefined, in the text, by geographical coordinates.

381
TPPT See paras. 8.86-8.123 of this Memorial.

21511.52. Nor did the subsequent boundary agreem ents concluded between Romania and

the Soviet Union identify this point by geographical coordinates. The last point

appearing in the sketches or on the maps included in these agreements – Point B

– was not meant to represent the fi nal point of the boundary. It merely

represented the point where these sketches and maps terminated.

382
11.53. However, all the charts TPF issued at different points in time by the Soviet Union,

Ukraine, Romania and other third States which show the complete boundary on

the 12 nm arc around Serpents’ Island draw this arc up to a certain point. Unlike

the sketches and the maps included in, or attached to, the Romanian-Soviet

Procès Verbaux, which draw the boundary on the arc only up to Point B, as this

point practically represents the end of those sketches/maps, the final point of the

boundary presented on these charts is situ ated due east of Se rpents’ Island and

its position is not conditioned by any factor such as the end of the map.

11.54. Nevertheless, all these charts are co nsistent in ending the maritime boundary in

a point situated on the 12 nm arc surrounding Serpents Island situated east of it.

The position of this point (defined in geographical co-ordinates) coincides on all

these charts. It is situated at approximately 45 °14'20''N, 30°29'12''E. Romania

will refer hereafter to this point as "Point X".

11.55. This final point of the maritime boundary – Point X – is shown in the same

location by Romanian and Soviet char ts drafted starting in 1951, immediately

after the conclusion of the 1949 Procès Verbal. Consequently, these charts

present concordant Romanian and S oviet positions, reflecting, without any

doubt, the sense of the agreement concluded in 1949 and subsequently

confirmed several times - which is also confirmed by the charts issued by third

States.

11.56. The Soviet map annexed to the Turk ey/USSR Continental Shelf Agreement

from 1978 TPF3PTregistered with the United Nati ons Secretariat, precisely draws

the Romanian/Soviet maritime boundary up to the same Point X. Thus, Point X

TP2PT See Maps RM A 15 – RM A 42 in the Map Atlas.
TP3PT Map RM A 15 in the Map Atlas.

216 is contained in an international treaty duly registered with the United Nations.

11.57. In conclusion, the point of departure of the Romanian/Ukrainian maritime

boundary from the 12 mile arc around Serpen ts’ Island, is Point X, situated due

east of the island, at approximately 45 °14'20''N, 30 °29'12''E. This point is

represented in the same location on all charts which draw the maritime
boundary in the neighbourhood of Serpents’ Island.

(g) The course of the boundary beyond Point X

11.58. Beyond Point X, the maritime boundary was never delimited between Romania
and the USSR or Ukraine.

11.59. This is not the first time that this Court finds itself in a situation when a segment
of a maritime boundary was established by agreement, while itself was called to

rule on the delimitation of the areas situated beyond that segment.

11.60. The Case on Land and Maritime Boundary between Cameroon and Nigeria

(Cameroon v. Nigeria) dealt with a comparable s ituation. The first portion of

the maritime boundary between the two States (from the last point of the land

border to the so-called "Point G") was es tablished by a bilateral agreement, the
Maroua Declaration, which the Court found valid. However, the outer segment

of the boundary (beyond Point G) had not been established by the two States,

thus the Court proceeded to applyi ng the equitable principles/relevant
circumstances method in order to conduct the delimitation of the maritime areas

beyond point G.

11.61. As Point G did not lie on the equidistance line between the two States, the Court

decided that “Cameroon [wa]s therefore entitled to request that from point G the

boundary of the Parties’ respective maritime areas should return to the
equidistance line.” The Court went furt her and decided that “from point G the

delimitation line should directly join th e equidistance line at a point…called

217 384
point X.” TPFFPT

11.62. The situation in this case is similar: the maritime boundary delimiting the

maritime seas of the two States, as we ll as the initial segment of the boundary

separating the Romanian exclusive econom ic zone and continental shelf from

the Ukrainian territorial waters around Serpents’ Island between Points F and X

were established by bilateral agreements . However, the other segments of the

delimitation line were not established by the two States. Thus, the proper way

for the Court to conduct the delimitation of the maritime areas of Romania and

Ukraine in Sector 1 is, first, to confirm the boundary between Point F and X, as

established by agreement, second, to un ite Point X with th e equidistance line

and third, to follow the equidistance lin e between the mainland adjacent coasts

of the two States.

11.63. The line equidistant between the adj acent Romanian and Ukrainian relevant

coasts is shown in Figure 28 (page 219 of this Memorial).

11.64. To calculate the position of this line, Romania used the nearest points situated

on the baselines of the relevant coasts of the two States, as previously defined in

Chapter 9 of this Memorial.

TP4PT Land and Maritime Boundary between Cameroon and Nigeria (Cameroon v. Nigeria;

Equatorial Guinea intervening), ICJ Reports 2002, judgment of 10 October 2002 (para. 307).

218Figure 28

Romanian and Ukrainian coasts

The equidistant line between the adjacent relevant11.65. Thus, on the Romanian coast only one point is relevant to construct the

equidistance line: the outer (exter nal) end of the Sulina dyke (45 °08'42''N,

29°46'20''E).

11.66. On the other hand, on the Ukrainian coast, the following points are relevant and

most advantageous for the Uk rainian side: Cape Kubansky (45°19'31''N,

29°45'58''E), as well as any points situat ed on the line uniting Cape Kubansky

with Point 1438, and Cape Burnas (45°50'40''N, 30°12'00''E).

11.67. From the coasts up to a point that Romania will refer to as "Point D", the
equidistance line is governed by the outer (external) end of the Sulina dyke and,

respectively, by Cape Kubansky; after Point D to the intersection with the line

median between the Romanian and Ukrainian opposite coasts (Point T), the

equidistance line is governed by the outer end of the Sulina dyke and,

respectively, by Cape Burnas.

11.68. As it can be seen from Figure 28, Point X is not situated on the equidistance

line, but about 2.5 nautical miles on the arc, to the north. Thus, in the absence of

any other relevant circumstance, from Point X the boundary should return to
equidistance. Under normal circumstances , this would consist in drawing a

perpendicular line from Point X direct to the equidistance line – at a point that

will be referred to as "Point Y 1" – see Figure 29 (page 222 of this Memorial).

11.69. This approach would be consistent w ith the solution chosen by this Court in
385
Land and Maritime Boundary between Cameroon and Nigeria TPF. Butsucha

solution would involve awarding Romania a sliver of maritime area only about

1.5 km², pinned between the maritime areas of Ukraine. This would represent a

departure from the will of the Parties, who evidently attached importance to
Point X, which was drawn in the same location practically on every chart issued

by them or by third parties. Since the very purpose of establishing the exclusive

economic zone and the continental shelf is to permit the access to, and the

sustainable exploitation by a State of, resources in t hose areas, this approach

would be a departure from equity as well: there is no point in a maritime delimitation which creates maritime zones which are practically neutralized.

11.70.For these reasons, to connect Point X directly with the equidistance line

between the Romanian and Ukrainian adjacent coasts does not lead to an

equitable solution and should be rejected.

11.71. The appropriate and equitable method is to join Point X with the point on the

equidistance line between the Romanian and Ukrainian adjacent coasts

representing approximately the middle of the segment linking the point of

intersection of the equidi stance line with th e arc around Serpents’ Island, and

Points D and T; this point coincides with the point where the equidistance line

intersects the line uniting Point X and Point T. Romania will refer to this point

as "Point Y". The position of Point Y is 45°11'59''N, 30°49'16''E. It is shown on

Figure 29 (page 222 of this Memorial).

11.72. This solution would lead to the allo cation to Romania of a maritime area of

about 68 km². This roughly equals the area lost by Romania because of the

unjustified departure from equidistance when delimiting the territorial seas

between Romania and the USSR, a factor which should be kept in mind when

considering the overall equity of the solution adopted.

11.73. Apart from the presence of Serpents’ Island and the position of the maritime

boundary around it established by the Roma nian/Soviet Procès Verbaux, in

Sector 1 there is no othe r relevant/special circumstance to be considered TPFF.T

Consequently, from Point Y, the ma ritime boundary should follow the line

equidistant between the adjacent Romanian and Ukrainian coasts.

385
TP PT See paras. 11.60-11.61 of this Chapter.
TP6PT The general circumstance represented by the ge ographical configuration of the Black Sea also
applies to the whole delimitation area and is to be taken into account consequently – see paras. 6.21-6.34
and 8.124-8.125 of this Memorial.

221Figure 29

and the equidistant line

The trace of the maritime boundary between Point X (h) The course of the boundary in Sector 1

11.74. For these reasons, the maritime boundary between the continental shelf and the

exclusive economic zones of Romania and Ukraine runs in Sector 1 from Point

F (45°05'21''N, 30°02'27''E, being the junction of the territorial seas of Romania

and Ukraine, as agreed in 2003), along the segment of arc having a radius of 12
nm drawn from Serpents’ Island, up to Point X (of 45 °14'20''N, 30°29'12''E).

From Point X, the boundary joins the equidistance line based on the adjacent

coasts of Ukraine and Romania at Point Y (of 45 °11'59''N, 30°49'16''E). The

boundary is then constructed as the equidistance line, going through Point D (of
45°12'10''N, 30 °59'46''E) up to Point T (the turning point, of 45 °09'45''N,

31°08'40''E).

11.75. The boundary in Sector 1 is shown in Figure 30 (page 224 of this Memorial).Figure 30

The course of the maritime boundary in Sector 1

equidistance line at Point Y; beyond Point Y to Point T, it follows the equidistance line
From Point F to Point X, it follows the 12-nm arc around Serpents’ Island; then it joins the(3) Sector 2: The boundary between opposite coasts (Romania/Crimean Peninsula)

11.76. The boundary in Sector 2 begins at the point wher e the equidistance line

between the adjacent mainland coasts of the Parties meets the opposite coast

median line between Romania and the Crim ean Peninsula. Sector 2 covers the
area for delimitation in a southwards direction until it meets maritime zones

appertaining to other States bordering on the Black Sea (see Figure 31 – page

226 of this Memorial).

(a) The provisional median line in Sector 2

11.77. It is first appropriate to determine the location of the provisional median line

between the opposite coasts. The median line is to be cons tructed taking into

account the nearest points situated on the baselines of th e relevant coasts of the
two States, as previously defined.

11.78. As far as the Romanian side is concer ned, due to the geogra phical situation of
the relevant Romanian coast, only two points are relevant to establish the

median line:

- the outer (eastern) end of the Sulina dyke (45°08'42"N, 29°46'20''E);

- the south-eastern end of the Sacalin Peninsula (44°47'21"N, 29°32'55"E).

11.79. As to the Ukrainian side, the following points situated on the Crimean coast are

applicable:

- Cape Tarkhankut (45°20'50"N, 32°29'43"E);

- Cape Khersones (44°35'04"N, 33°22'48"E). Figure 31

Sector 2 of delimitation11.80. On this basis, the median line between the opposite coasts is the line joining the

points defined by the following geographical coordinates:

- Point T of 45 °09'45''N, 31°08'40''E (which is also e quidistant to the adjacent

Romanian and Ukrainian coasts);

- the point of 44°35'00"N, 31°13'43"E;

- the point of 44°04'05"N, 31°24'40"E;

- the point of 43°26'50"N, 31°20'10"E.

11.81. The final defined point is referred to by Romania as "Point Z". As Point Z

coincides practically with Point L from the Soviet/Turkish Agreement TPF Fand

388
Point 10 from the Bulgarian/Turkish Agreement TPF, its final location should be

established by negotiations with third c ountries (namely Turkey). However, as

Point Z is practically the point equidistant to the Romanian, Ukrainian and

Turkish coasts, and is farther to the Bulgarian coast, drawing the

Romanian/Ukrainian maritime boundary up to Point Z does not affect the

entitlements to maritime areas of third countries.

11.82. The provisional median line is depicted on Figure 32 (page 228 of this

Memorial).

387
TP PT See para. 6.9 of Chapter 6 of this Memorial.
TP8PT See para. 6.16 of Chapter 6 of this Memorial. Figure 32

The median line between the
relevant Romanian and

Ukrainian opposite coasts (b) The location of Point T - the turning point between Sector 1 and Sector 2

11.83. Point T is the point of intersection of the line equidistant to the Romanian and

Ukrainian relevant adjacent costs and the line median between the Romanian

and Ukrainian relevant opposite coasts . Its geographical coordinates are

45°09'45''N, 31°08'40''E.

(c) Identifying relevant/special circumstances in Sector 2

389
11.84.There is no relevant/special ci rcumstance discernible in Sector 2 TPF. The

opposite coastlines are broadly equal to each other and present no special

features.

(d) The course of the boundary in Sector 2

11.85. For these reasons, there is no basis for departing fr om the provisional median

line in Sector 2. The maritime boundary in Sector 2 is depicted on Figure 33

(page 230 of this Memorial).

389
TP PT The general circumstance represented by the geographical configuration of the Black Sea
applies to the whole delimitation area – see paras. 6.21-6.34 and 8.124-8.125 of this Memorial. Figure 33

The course of the maritime
boundary in Sector 2(4) The maritime boundary between the exclusive economic zones and the

continental shelf of Romania and Ukraine in the Black Sea

11.86.Taking into account all the above, the maritime boundary between the

exclusive economic zones and the contin ental shelf of Romania and Ukraine
in the Black Sea should have the following course:

from Point F, at 45 °05'21''N, 30 °02'27''E, on the 12 nm arc
surrounding Serpents’ Island, to Point X, at 45 °14'20''N,

30 °29'12''E,

from Point X in a straight segment to Point Y, at 45 °11'59''N,
30 °49'16''E,

then on the line equidistant between the Romanian and Ukrainian
adjacent coasts, from Point Y to Point T, at 45 °09'45''N,

31 °08'40''E,

and then on the line median between the Romanian and Ukrainian
opposite coasts, from Point T to Point Z, at 43 °26'50''N,

31 °20'10''E.

11.87. The boundary is shown in Figure 34, at page 232 of this Memorial.

231 Figure 34

The maritime boundary between the exclusive
economic zones and the continental shelf of

Romania and Ukraine in the Black Sea

232 CHAPTER 12

EQUITABLENESS OF THE DELIMITATION LINE

(1) Introduction

12.1. As already explained, it has become usual that the equitableness of a maritime

delimitation be tested using the so-calle d “proportionality test”. The aspects

regarding proportionality were dealt w ith in detail in paras. 8.58-8.70 of

Chapter 8 of this Memorial.

12.2. As well, an equitable delimitation should not encroach upon (should not cut-

off) the maritime entitlements of neither of the parties to the delimitation and

should not affect their security interests.

(2) The proportionality test

12.3. The proportionality test, as applied in various processes of delimitation by this

Court or different arbitral tribunals, supposes the comparison between the ratio

of the lengths of the coasts relevant for the delimitation and the ratio of the

water areas accorded to the two partie s by the equidistant/median line as

shifted after the consideration of the relevant circumstances.

12.4. While analyzing the application of th e provisions of article 4(b) of the

Additional Agreement, Romania identified the relevant area for delimitation

(see paras. 9.26-9.29 of Chapter 9 of this Memorial); it has a surface area of
2
86,095.3 km P.

12.5. The water areas from the delimita tion area allocated to Romania and,

respectively, Ukraine by the equidistant/median line, as shifted to consider the

presence of Serpents’ Island and its 12 nm surrounding circle, have the
2 2
following sizes: Romania 31,542.8 km P, Ukraine 54,552.5 km P, the ratio being

Romania: Ukraine 1:1.729.

23312.6. In paras. 9.24-9.25 of this Memorial the lengths of the releva nt coasts of the

two States (and their baselines) were determined. These are:

Romanian relevant coasts: 269.67 km (baselines: 204.90 km);

Ukrainian relevant coasts: 388.14 km (baselines: 292.63 km).

12.7. Consequently, the ratio is Romania: Ukraine 1: 1.439. If the baselines of the

relevant coasts are considered, the ratio becomes Romania: Ukraine 1: 1.428.

12.8. After comparing the ratios between the lengths of th e relevant coasts of the

two States/their baselines and the water areas allocated to them by the

equidistant/median line as modified to take into account the 12 nm arc around

Serpents’ Island, it is noticeable that they are comparable (they produce only a

slight advantage in favour of Ukraine). Thus, there is no reason to further shift

the delimitation line.

(3) The principle of no cut-off

12.9. The principle according to which “cut-o ff” or encroachment on the maritime

zone areas of other States is to be avoided as far as possible is well established

in international jurisprudence. Thus, the Court in the North Sea Continental

Shelf case observed that:

“the continental shelf of any State must be the natural

prolongation of its land territory and must not encroach upon
what is the natural prolongation of the territory of another
State.” TPFFPT

Similarly, the relevant paragraph of the dispositif provided:

“delimitation is to be effected by agreement in accordance with
equitable principles, and taking account of all the relevant
circumstances, in such a way as to leave as much as possible to

each Party all those parts of the continental shelf that constitute
a natural prolongation of its la nd territory into and under the

390
TPPT ICJ Reports 1969, p. 47 (para. 85).

234 sea, without encroachment on the natural prolongation of the
391
land territory of the other” TPF FPT

12.10. In the St Pierre et Miquelon case, the Court of Arbitr ation, having discussed

the jurisprudence of the Court, endorsed the Canadi an formulation of the

principle in the following terms:

“the delimitation must leave to a State the areas that constitute
the natural prolongation or seawar d extension of its coasts, so

that the delimitation must avoid any cut-off effect of those
392
prolongations or seaward extensions” TPF FPT

12.11. The Court in the Libya/Malta case described the question of cut-off, included

in its list of the “well- known examples” of the a pplication of “equitable

principles”, in the following terms:

“the principle of non-encroachment by one party on the natural

prolongation of the other, which is no more than the negative

expression of the positive rule that the coastal State enjoys
sovereign rights over th e continental shelf off its coasts to the

full extent authorized by international law in the relevant
393
circumstances” TPF FPT

12.12. Romania also had a constant position regarding the necessity that any

maritime delimitation should lead to no cut--off. Thus, in the course of the

negotiations of the 1982 UNCLOS, while submitting various proposals

regarding the role of islands in delimitation, Ro mania also referred to the

principle of no cut-off, stating that its proposals were intended to

“prevent any State from encroaching on the maritime zones of

another State by invoking the ex istence of uninhabited islands
394
in the delimitation area” TPF FPT

TP1PT ICJ Reports 1969, p. 53, (para. 101(C)(1)).
392
TP PT International Legal Materials, vol. 31, p. 1145, at p. 1167, para. 58.
TP3PT Continental Shelf (Libyan Arab Jamahiriya/Malta), Judgment, ICJ Reports 1985 , p. 39 (para.

46)
TP4PT 169 PPPlenary Meeting (1982), para 53, XVI Official Records, 97. See also para. 8.13 of this

Memorial.

23512.13. In the present case, the maritime boundary as described in Chapter 11 does not

cut-off the entitlements to continental shelf and exclusive economic zones of

either Romania or Ukraine. The area attributed to each party does not

encroach on the natural prolongation of the other.

(4) The necessity to protect security interests of States

12.14. Another factor relevant to maritime de limitations is the necessity that the

maritime boundary not imperil on the security interests of any of the parties.

As the Chamber said in the Gulf of Maine case:

“It is… evident that the respectiv e scale of activities connected
with fishing – or navigation, defence or, for that matter,

petroleum exploration and exploi tation – cannot be taken into
account as a relevant circumstance or, if the term is preferred,
as an equitable criterion to be applied in determining the

delimitation line. What the Chamber would regard as a
legitimate scruple lies rather in concern lest the overall result,
even though achieved through th e application of equitable

criteria and the use of appropr iate methods for giving them
concrete effect, should unexpected ly be revealed as radically
inequitable, that is to say, as likely to entail catastrophic

consequences for the livelihood and economic wel395eing of the
population of the countries concerned.” TPF FPT

12.15. A similar approach was taken in the Jan Mayen case, when the Court,

referring to the Chamber’s dictum in the Gulf of Maine case, decided to

“consider whether any shifting or adjustment of the median
line, as fishery zone boundary, would be required to ensure
396
equitable access to the capelin fishery resources […]” TPFPT

12.16. The Gulf of Maine and Jan Mayen cases concerned issues of economic

security and access to resources which ha d traditionally been used by relevant

populations. But the categories of “catastrophic consequences” are not

exhausted, and the principle would be triggered, for example, by a proposal

for zones of sovereign rights of one Stat e directly in front of the adjacent

coastal State.

395
TPPT ICJ Reports 1984, p. 342 (para 237).

23612.17. In the present case, the maritime boundary as defined in Chapter 11 of this

Memorial ensures the access of both Parties to the resources of the

delimitation area. Consequen tly, it does not affect the security interest of

neither of the two States.

12.18. In this context, it is worth mentioning that the security in terests of Romania

were already affected by the establis hment of the maritime boundary between

Romania and the USSR in the territoria l sea and in the area around Serpents’

Island, by the 1949 Procès Verbal a nd the subsequent Romanian-Soviet

documents. As already mentioned, this maritime boundary reduced the size of

the Romanian territorial sea facing Serpents’ Island with approximately 70
2
km Pand thus encroached upon the Romanian maritime entitlements in that

area. By its trace and its proximity to the Romanian coast, the boundary

embarrasses the exercise of Romanian act ivities in areas situated immediately

in front of the Romanian shore. A llocating further maritime entitlements to

Serpents’ Island could extend the cons equences of the already existing

inequitable situation and would furthe r affect, in this way, the legitimate

security interests of the Romanian State.

12.19. Taking into account all the above, the delim itation identified in this Memorial

leads to an equitable solution, in accor dance with the applicable law between

the two parties, and especially the prin ciples under the Additional Agreement,

as well as under Articles 74 and 83 of the 1982 UNCLOS.

TPPT Maritime Delimitation in the Area between Greenland and Jan Mayen (Denmark v. Norway),
Judgment, ICJ Reports 1993, pp. 71-72 (para. 75).

237 397
S UMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS TPF FPT

After reviewing all the elements pertinent to the case of Maritime Delimitation in the

Black Sea, Romania concludes the following:

i) The applicable law in this case is represented by the 1997 Additional

Agreement (as lex speciali), by the 1982 UNCLOS reflecting the general

principles of the Law of the Sea (as lex generali) and by the 1949

Romanian-Soviet Procès Verbaux a nd its subsequent Romanian-Soviet

documents concluded in 1954, 1963 and 1974;

ii) According to the relevant provisions of the Additional Agreement, the

delimitation method to by applied in the present case consists in first

drawing a provisional equidistant/m edian line between the relevant

adjacent/opposite Romanian and Ukrainian coasts and then taking into

consideration the influence of th e relevant circumstances of the

delimitation area on this line;

iii) This method corresponds with the me thod constantly ap plied in recent

jurisprudence of international courts and tribunals, a nd in particular in the

case-law of this Court;

iv) The first segment of the maritime boundary was already established by the

1949 Procès Verbaux, on the 12 nm arc around Serpents’ Island;

v) Serpents’ Island, as a rock unable to support human habitation or an

economic life of its own, has no e ffect upon the delimitation of the

continental shelf and the exclusiv e economic zones of Romania and

Ukraine, other than the 12 nm semi-e nclave of territorial sea surrounding

it;

TPPT The purpose of this “Summary of conclusions”, as well as of the conclusions of certain
chapters, is to better underline important findings in this Memorial. It does not represent an exhaustive
presentation of the arguments and reasoning of Romania.

238vi) This is not only in conformity with th e natural characteristics of Serpents’

Island, but also with th e provisions of the 1949 Procès Verbaux and is
supported by a constant international State practice and jurisprudence;

vii) Irrespective of the status of Serpents ’ Island as a rock unable to support
human habitation and an economic lif e of its own in the meaning of

Article 121(3), this maritime formation, taking into account its natural

characteristics, uninhabitable nature, and geographi cal position in respect
to the Romanian mainland, which leads to the fact that it has the potential

to distort an otherwise equitable e quidistant line, should be ignored for

purposes of delimitation of the contin ental shelf and exclusive economic

zone between Romania and Ukraine, except for the 12 nm semi-enclave of
territorial sea surrounding it;

viii) Ukraine’s conduct in relation to Serp ents’ Island implies a recognition
that Serpents’ Island cannot sustain human habitation or economic life of

its own. In any event the Ukrainian measures cannot lead to any change in

respect to the legal status of Serpents’ Island;

ix) According to the geographical backgr ound and its relevant circumstances,

the provisional equidistant/median line is not to be shifted, apart from the
12 nm semi-enclave around Serpents’ Island and the segment uniting the

arc around Serpents’ Is land with the equidist ance line (the existing

geographical background and relevant circumstances not justifying any

further adjustment of the equidistant/median line);

x) This solution is perfectly equitable, as confirmed by the “proportionality
test”. It is also in conformity w ith the established practice of delimitation

in the Black Sea.

xi) Any other solution would encroach upon Romania’s entitlements in the

delimitation area and would affect its s ecurity interests, as well as prolong

the inequities perpetrated with re gard to Serpents’ Island and its

surrounding maritime areas, as a consequence of history.

239 Figure 34

The maritime boundary between the exclusive
economic zones and the continental shelf of

Romania and Ukraine in the Black Sea
241LIST OF ANNEXES

242Annex RM 1 Treaty on the Relations of Good Neighbourliness and Co-
Operation between Romania and Ukraine, signed at Constan ţa,
on 2 June 1997;

Annex RM 2 Agreement Additional to the Treaty on the Relations of Good
Neighbourliness and Co-Opera tion between Romania and
Ukraine, concluded by excha nge of letters between the
Ministers of Foreign Affairs of Romania and Ukraine, done on
2 June 1997;

Annex RM 3 Treaty between Romania and Ukraine on the Romanian-
Ukrainian State Border Regime, Collaboration and Mutual
Assistance on Border Matters, signed at Cern ăuţi, on 17 June
2003;

Annex RM 4 Protocol on the Exchange of In struments of Ratification of the

Treaty between Romania and Ukraine on the Romanian-
Ukrainian State Border Regime, Collaboration and Mutual
assistance on Border Matters, Mamaia, 27 May 2004;

Annex RM 5 Vasile Cucu, Gheorghe Vl ăsceanu, Insula Şerpilor (Serpents’
Island,) „Viaţa Româneasc ă” Publishing House, Bucharest,
1991;

Annex RMC 6 R.I. ălinescu, Insula Şerpilor. Schiţă monografică (Serpents’
Island. Monographic Study), published in the Analele Dobrogei
magazine, “Glasul Bucovinei” Publishing House, Cern ăuţi,
1931;

Annex RM 7 Note of 27 June 1940 to the Romanian Mission in Moscow;

Annex RM 8 Note of 28 June 1940 to the Romanian Mission in Moscow;

Annex RM 9 Note of 28 June 1940 of the Romanian Mission in Moscow;

Annex RM 10 M (reiildi)u Ştefănescu, Din amintirile veteranilor

(War Veterans’ Memories) , published in Revista de istorie
militară (Military History Magazine), issue no. 3 (31)/1995;

Annex RM 11 Protocol to Specify the Line of the State Boundary between the
People’s Republic of Romania and the Union of Soviet
Socialist Republics, signed at Moscow, on 4 February 1948;

Annex RM 12 Procès Verbal of Delivery-Reception, signed on Serpents’
Island on 23 May 1948;

243Annex RM 13 Procès Verbal of the Descript ion of the State Border Line
between the People’s Republic of Romania and the Union of
the Soviet Socialist Republic s, demarcated in 1948-1949,
signed at Bucharest, on 27 September 1949, volume III;

Annex RM 14 Procès Verbal of Border Sign no. 1438 (buoy), signed at
Bucharest, on 27 September 1949;

Annex RM 15 Procès Verbal of Border Sign no. 1439 (beacon), signed at
Bucharest, on 27 September 1949;

Annex RM 16 Treaty between the Government of the People’s Republic of
Romania and the Government of the USSR on the Regime of
the Romanian-Soviet State Bo rder, signed at Moscow, on 25
November 1949;

Annex RM 17 Act signed by the Border Author ized Officer of the People’s
Republic of Romania for the Tulcea sector and the Border

Authorized Officer of the Un ion of the Soviet Socialist
Republics for the Ismail sector, in Ismail on 26 December
1954;

Annex RM 18 Treaty between the Government of the People's Republic of
Romania and the Government of the Union of Soviet Socialist
Republics on the Romanian-Soviet State Border Regime,
Collaboration and Mutual Assistance on Border Matters (with

Procès Verbal), signed at Bucharest, on 27 February 1961;

Annex RM 19 Procès Verbal of Description of the State Border Line between
the People’s Republic of Romania and the Union of the Soviet
Socialist Republics on Rivers Tur, Tisa, Prut and Danube,
drafted on the Basis of the Ve rification Effected in 1961-1962
in Sectors where Modifications as Compared to the 1948-1949

Demarcation Documents Occurred, signed at Iaşi, on 20 August
1963;

Annex RM 20 Procès Verbal of Border Sign no. 1438 (buoy) , signed at Ia şi,
on 20 August 1963;

Annex RM 21 Procès Verbal of Description of the State Border Line between

the Socialist Republic of Romania and the Union of the Soviet
Socialist Republics from Border Sign no. 1335 to Border Sign
no. 1439, Drafted on the Basis of th e Verifications Effected in
1972-1973, the Tulcea sector, signed in Ismail, on 4 September
1974;

Annex RM 22 Procès Verbal of Border Sign no. 1439 (beacon), signed in

Ismail, on 4 September 1974;

244Annex RM 23 Note verbale no. C26/3118 dated 17 June 2003 of the Ministry
of Foreign Affairs of Romania to the Embassy of Ukraine in
Bucharest;

Annex RM 24 Note verbale no. E VI-1/3559 dated 27 May 2004 of the

Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Romania to the Embassy of
Ukraine in Bucharest;

Annex RM 25 Note verbale no. C23/491 da ted 24 January 2002 of the
Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Romania to the Ministry of
Foreign Affairs of Ukraine;

Annex RM 26 Note verbale no. 72/16-446-119 dated 29 May 2002 of the
Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Ukraine to the Embassy of
Romania in Kiev;

Annex RM 27 Ukraine. List of the geographi cal coordinates of the points
defining the position of the baselines for measuring the width

of the territorial waters, economic zone and continental shelf of
the Black Sea, Law of the Sea Bulletin no.36/1998;

Annex RM 28 Extract from the minutes of the 1976 Romanian-Soviet
negotiations;

Annex RM 29 Extract from the minutes of the 1978 Romanian-Soviet

negotiations;

Annex RM 30 Extract from the minutes of the 1980 Romanian-Soviet
negotiations;

Annex RM 31 Extract from the minutes of the 1987 Romanian-Soviet
negotiations;

Annex RM 32 Declaration of the Vietnamese mi nister of foreign affairs, Mr.
Nguyen Dy Nien, published by the Vietnamese newspaper
Nhân Dân, on 1 July 2004;

Annex RM 33 Article titled “The apple of discord tasting like oil” , published
in Iug, issue no. 51 (15053), of 13 July 2002; author: Alexandr

Iurcenko;

Annex RM 34 Opinion of the Committee on Culture and Education of the
Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe on the
freedom of expression in Ukraine , Rapporteur: Andrzej
Urbanczyk, Poland, Socialist Group; Doc. 8946/23 January

2001;

Annex RM 35 Resolution 1346 (2003) of the Parliamentary Assembly of the
Council of Europe, "Honouring of ob ligations and
commitments by Ukraine";

245Annex RM 36 Article titled “The tourist island”, published in the Ukrainian
newspaper Kievskie Vedomosti, issue no. 56 (2861) of 17
March 2003; author: Serghei Milosevich;

Annex RM 37 Report of Baron of Hübner to Count Boul-Schauenstein with
respect to the condition of th e Serpents’ Island: geographical
data about it, opinion on who would be entitled to own it, etc.
Xerographic Collection of Vienna, CCVI/1;

Annex RM 38 Report on the improvement of navigation on Lower Danube,

presented to the European Commission by Mr. C.A. Hartley, its
chief-engineer, Galatz, 17 October 1857 , General Department
of the National Archives, Galatz, Romania, European Danube
Commission, 5/1857-1858;

Annex RM 39 Document no. 5/0, issued by the Technical Department of the
European Danube Commission on 28 June 1920, at Sulina,

General Department of the National Archives, Galatz,
Romania, European Danube Commission. S. G., 82/1919-1923;

Annex RM 40 Report addressed to the Romani an Minister for Home Affairs
with respect to Serpents’ Island, drafted and signed by a Police
Inspector and by the M.D. in Ch ief of the Ministry of Home
Affairs (indecipherable signatures), 14 May 1938;

Annex RM 41 The Great Soviet Encyclopaedia, Volume 27, Moscow, 1933,
p. 74;

Annex RM 42 Article titled “Insula Serpilor" ("Serpents’ Island)” , published
in the Romanian newspaper Acţiunea (The Action), issue 2343,
of 25 March 1938; author: D. L. Stahiescu;

Annex RM 43Si Ionionescu, Pitorescul României (The Picturesque of
Romania), volume I, Între Dun ăre şi mare (Between the
Danube and the Sea), “Cartea Românească” Publishing House,
1942;

Annex RM 44 GP eopga, Λευκη. Insula Şerpilor (Λευκη. Serpents’ Island),

in the Romanian Magazine for History, Archaeology and
Philology, published by the “I.V. Socecu” Publishing House,
Bucharest, 1894;

Annex RM 45 M Dirhai ăghicescu, Istoricul principalelor puncte pe Dun ăre
dela Gura Tisei pân ă la Mare şi pe coastele m ării dela Varna

la Odesa (The History of the Main Landmarks on the Danube,
from the Tisa’s Mouth to the Sea and on the Sea Shore, from
Varna to Odessa), Bucharest, 1943;

246Annex RM 46 Ge Rorgeu, Insula Serpilor (Serpents’ Island), “Atelierele
Grafice Emil Grabovschi” Publishing House, Chişinău, 1940;
Annex RM 47 Edward Daniel Clarke, Travels in various countries of Europe,
Asia and Africa, Part the First, Russia, Tartary and Turkey ,
Cambridge, Printed at the University Press by H. Watts, 1810;

Annex RM 48 Alexan Bdouza, Observaţiuni fitosociologice pe Insula
Şerpilor (Phyto-sociological obs ervations on the Serpents’
Island), the Publishing House of the Romanian Naturalists
Society, Cluj, 1929

Annex RM 49 AlexanV drlahu ţă, România Pitoreasc ă (Picturesque
Romania), “I.V. Socecu” Publishing House, Bucharest, 1901;

Annex RM 50 Article titled “The taming of the serpents”, published by the
Ukrainian newspaper Ukraina Moloda, issue no. 167 (1973) of
12 September 2002; author: M. Axaniuk;

Annex RM 51 Article titled “A patch of Ukraine between sea and sky” ,
published in the Ukrainian newspaper Golos Ukraini, issue no.
78 (3078) of 23 April 2003;

Annex RM 52 Article titled “Acacias are goi ng to blossom on Serpents’
Island, too”, published in the Ukrainian newspaper Golos
Ukraini, issue no. 83 (3083), of 7 May 2003; author: Gheorghi

Vorotniuc;

Annex RM 53 Article titled “The little to wn of the lighthouse on Serpents’
Island”, published by the Ukrainian newspaper Odesskie
Izvestia, issue no. 207 (3025), of 3 November 2004;

Annex RM 54 Edm Sundcer, Travels in Circassia, Krim, Tartary, &c.,
including a stream voyage dow n the Danube, from Vienna to
Constantinople and round the Black Sea, in 1836, London,
Henry Colburn, Great Marlborough Street, 1837;

Annex RM 55 Cyrille, From Paris to Serpents’ Island across Romania,
Hungary and the Mouths of the Danube (De Paris à l’Île des

Serpents à travers la Roumanie, la Hongrie et les bouches du
Danube), « Ernest Leroux » Publishing House, Paris, 1876;

Annex RM 56 Article titled “The number of the islanders is going to
increase”, published in the Ukrainian newspaper Odeskie
Izvestia, issue no. 192 (2766), of 16 October 2003; author:

Vladislav Kitik;

Annex RM 57 Article titled “The Serpents’ Island is the most important island
in the Black Sea and it belongs to Ukraine”, published in the

247 Ukrainian newspaper Zerkalo Nedeli, issue of 19 August 1995;
author: A. Murahovski;

Annex RM 58 Article titled “Serpents’ Island of the Kilia District” , published
in the Ukrainian newspaper Vecherniia Odessa, issue no. 27

(7565) of 19 February 2002; author: Dora Dukova;

Annex RM 59 The Black Sea Pilot comprisi ng the Dardanelles, Sea of
Marmara, Bosporus, Black Sea, and Sea of Azov , Seventh
Edition, 1920, London, printe d by the Hydrographic
Department, Admiralty;

Annex RM 60 The Black Sea Pilot comprisi ng the Dardanelles, Sea of
Marmara, Bosporus, Black Sea, and Sea of Azov , Eighth
Edition, 1930, London, printe d by the Hydrographic
Department, Admiralty;

Annex RM 61 Document no. 2093/345, of 10 August 1933, issued by the

Technical Service of the European Danube Commission,
Sulina, General Department of the National Archives, Danube
European Commission, S. G., 364/1929-1939;

Annex RM 62 Documente privind istoria militar ă a poporului român - iulie
1891-decembrie 1894 (Documents on the Military History of
the Romanian People – July 1891 – December 1894) , Editura

Militară (Military Publishing House), Bucharest, 1976;

Annex RM 63 Article titled “Geamanduri în uniformă” (“Buoys in Uniform”),
published in the Romanian newspaper Curentul, issue 2795 of
14 November 1935; author Ion Dimitrescu;

Annex RM 64 Article titled “The map of depths near the Serpents’ Island –

navigation of maritime ships to th e island is to be ensured by
the experts of the GOSHIDR OGRAFIA enterprise, of
Ukraine”, published by the Ukrainian newspaper Odesskie
Izvestia, issue no. 213 (2541) of 13 November 2002, quoting
Alexandr Boris, first deputy dire ctor of Ukrmorcartografia (a
State-owned cartographic enterprise);

Annex RM 65 Article titled “The Military does not need Serpents’ Island” ,
published in the Ukrainian newspaper Iug, issue no. 22 (15024)
of 23 March 2002; unsigned;

Annex RM 66 Article titled “I wanted so bad to have a French perfume…and,
in a fortnight, I had it, when they brought the correspondence

by helicopter”, published in the Ukrainian newspaper Fakti,
issue of 6 October 2004; author: Aleksandr Levit;

248Annex RM 67 Note verbale no. EVI-1/2803 dated 4 May 2004 of the Ministry
of Foreign Affairs of Romania to the Embassy of Ukraine in
Bucharest;

Annex RM 68 Note verbale no. EVI/204 dated 9 August 2004 of the Ministry

of Foreign Affairs of Romania to the Embassy of Ukraine in
Bucharest;

Annex RM 69 Note verbale no. 72/22-446-4290 dated 18 August 2004 of the
Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Ukraine to the Embassy of
Romania in Kiev;

Annex RM 70 Article titled “Serpents’ Isla nd’s concerns are our concerns” ,
published in the Odessa-based Odeskie Izvestia, issues no. 171
(2499) of 14 September 2002; author: Aleksandr Seryi;

Annex RM 71 Article titled “I find myself again at the end of the world” ,
published in the Ukrainian newspaper Odeskyi Vestnik, issue

no. 80 (3337) of 13 April 2005”; author: Valentina Surnina;

Annex RM 72 Article titled “On th e island the weather is fine”, published in
the Ukrainian newspaper Odesskie Izvestia , issue no. 238
(3056) of 14 December 2004; author: Vladislav Kitic;

Annex RM 73 Article titled “Ukraine decided to withdraw its anti-aircraft

defence from Serpents’ Island” published in the Ukrainian
newspaper Slovo, issue no. 18 (491) of 3 May 2002; author:
Viktor Veprik;

Annex RM 74 Article titled “The issue of Serpents’ Island failed once again to
be solved”, published in the Ukrainian newspaper Stolychnie
Novosti, issue no. 3 (248) of 28 January 2003; author: Tatiana

Visotzkaia;

Annex RM 75 Article titled “Changes are expe cted to be carried out on
Serpents’ Island”, published in the Ukrainian newspaper
Vecherniia Odessa, issue no. 197-198 (8138-8139) of 25
December 2004; author: Natalia Harcenko;

Annex RM 76 News titled "The Cabinet of Ministers will take
care of Serpents' Island" of the Ukrainian news
agency MIG news , available on Internet at
http://mignews.com.ua/articles/164879.html

Annex RM 77 Note verbale no. C23/2473 dated 25 April 2002 of the Ministry

of Foreign Affairs of Romania to the Embassy of Ukraine in
Bucharest;

249Annex RM 78 Note verbale no.C26/5805 dated 15 November 2002of the
Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Romania to the Embassy of
Ukraine in Bucharest;

Annex RM 79 Note verbale no.C26/1794 dated 25 April 2003of the Ministry
of Foreign Affairs of Romania to the Embassy of Ukraine in
Bucharest;

Annex RM 80 Decree No. 176 for the Modification of Articles 4, 120, 159 and
172 from the Decree No. 41 of 14 February 1950 Regarding
the Surveillance, Order and Control of Maritime and River
Navigation, in the Official Bulletin of the People’s Republic of
Romania no. 98 of 29 September 1951;

Annex RM 81 Decree No. 39 of the Presidium of the Great National Assembly
of the People’s Republic of Romania on Regulating the Regime
of the Territorial Waters of th e People’s Republic of Romania
of 21 January 1956;

Annex RM 82 Decision of the Central Execu tive Committee and the Council
of the People’s Commissars of the USSR on Approval of the
Regulation on the Protection of the State Border of the USSR of
15 June 1927;

Annex RM 83 Letter of Mr. Leonid Kuchma, president of Ukraine, addressed

to Mr. Ion Iliescu, president of Romania, on 29 August 2002;

Annex RM 84 Broce huttled Creation of the deep-water navigational
canal Danube – Black Sea in the Ukrainian part of delta of the
river Danube , Ministry of Transport and Communication of
Ukraine, 2004;

Annex RM 85 Broceh niteled Revival of Danube-Black sea deep-water
navigational channel on Uk rainian part of delta, Ministry of
Transport and Communication of Ukraine, April 2005;

Annex RM 86 Brochure edited in 2004 by the Ukrainian State-owned
enterprise Ukrmorcartographia;

Annexes RM 87 – Pictures of Serpents’ Island from the inter-bellum period.
- RM 91

250LIST OF MAPS

251MAP RM A 1 THE COURSE OF DANUBE (Source: Octavian Ion Penda,

Ion Ciortan, M ăriuca Radu (editors), Description of Romania
(Descriptio Romaniae), R. A. Monitorul Oficial, Bucharest,
2004, pp 68-69);

MAP RM A 2 MAP OF MEDIAEVAL HUNGARY (Source: Octavian Ion

Penda, Ion Ciortan, M ăriuca Radu (editors), Description of
Romania ( Descriptio Romaniae ), R. A. Monitorul Oficial,
Bucharest, 2004, pp 92-93);

MAP RM A 3 BLACK SEA ( Source: Octavian Ion Penda, Ion Ciortan,
Măriuca Radu (editors), Description of Romania ( Descriptio

Romaniae), R. A. Monitorul Oficial, Bucharest, 2004, pp 98-
99);

MAP RM A 4 BLACK SEA (Source: Octavian Ion Penda, Ion Ciortan,
Măriuca Radu (editors), Description of Romania ( Descriptio
Romaniae), R. A. Monitorul Oficial, Bucharest, 2004, pp 90-

91);

MAP RM A 5 MAP OF ROMANIA (Source: Octavian Ion Penda, Ion

Ciortan, M ăriuca Radu (editors), Description of Romania
(Descriptio Romaniae ), R. A. Monitorul Oficial, Bucharest,
2004, pp 128-129);

MAP RM A 6 SERPENTS’ ISLAND (Source: Octavian Ion Penda, Ion
Ciortan, M ăriuca Radu (editors), Description of Romania

(Descriptio Romaniae ), R. A. Monitorul Oficial, Bucharest,
2004, pp 104-105);

MAP RM A 7 BOUNDARY BETWEEN RUSSI A AND TURKEY ON
THE BESSARABIAN FRONTI ER AS FIXED BY THE
TREATIES OF 30 PhOF MARCH 1856, 6 PhPJANUARY 1857
th
AND 19 PJUNE 1857 (Source: Hertslet, The Map of Europe by
Treaty, vol. II (1828-1863));

MAP RM A 8 MAP ANNEXED TOthHE PROTOCOL OF PARIS OF
JANUARY 6 PP1857 (Source: Hertslet, The Map of Europe by
Treaty, vol. II (1828-1863), following p. 1301);

MAP RM A 9 MAP OF BESSARABIA AND THE DOBROUTHCEA
SHOWING BOUNDARY AS PROPOSED BY THE

TREATY OF SAN STEFANO AND AS FIXED BthTHE
TREATY OF BERLIN 13 P JULY 1878 (Source:
Hertslet, The Map of Europe by Treaty, vol. IV (1875-1891),

maps following pp. 2790 and 2798);

252 MAP RM A 10 MAP OF ROMANIA (Annexed to the 1947 Peace Treaty with
a i n a m o R );

MAP RM A 11 MAP OF THE STATE BORDER BETWEEN THE UNION
OF THE SOVIET SOCIALIS T REPUBLICS AND THE

PEOPLE’S REPUBLIC OF ROMANIA ( Annexed to the
1949 Procès Verbal, showing the border signs no. 1438 and
1439);

MAP RM A 12 MAP OF THE SULINA AREA ( Published by the
Geographical Service of the Romanian Arm;Edition: 1916)

MAP RM A 13 MAP OF SERPENTS’ ISLAND ( Magnified image of the
representation of Serpents’ Island on the previous map

MAP RM A 14 MAP OF DOBROGEA Published by the General Staff of the

Romanian Army; Edition: 1887);

MAP RM A 15 WESTERN PART OF THE BLACK SEA (Published by the
General Directorate for Na vigation and Oceanography,
Ministry of Defence of the USSR, Edition: 1977);

MAP RM A 16 WESTERN PART OF THE BLACK SEA (Published by the
Soviet Hydrographic Service of the Black Sea Navy, Edition:
1957);

MAP RM A 17 WESTERN PART OF THE BLACK SEA (Published by the

Soviet Hydrographic Service of the Black Sea Navy, Edition:
1957- detail of the maritime boundary around Serpents’
Island);

MAP RM A 18 BLACK SEA FROM THE NISTRU/DNIESTER
ESTUARY TO THE SULINA MOUTH ( Published by the

General Directorate for Na vigation and Oceanography,
Ministry of Defence of the USSR; Edition: 1;82

MAP RM A 19 BLACK SEA FROM ODESSA TO SULINA MOUTH
(Published by the General Dire ctorate for Navigation and

Oceanography, Ministry of Defe nce of the USSR; Edition:
1985);

MAP RM A 20 NORTH-WESTERN PART OF THE BLACK SEA
(Published by the General Dire ctorate for Navigation and

Oceanography, Ministry of Defe nce of the USSR; Edition:
1985);

253MAP RM A 21 BLACK SEA AND THE SEA OF AZOV (Published by the
State Hydrographic Service of Ukraine, Kiev; Edition: 2000

MAPRMA22 BLACK SEA AND THE SEA OF AZOV ( Published by the
State Hydrographic Service of Ukraine, Kiev; Edition: 2000 -
detail of the maritime boundary around Serpents’ Island);

MAP RM A 23 WESTERN PART OF THE BLACK SEA FROM ODESSA
TO SULINA MOUTH (Published by the Ukrainian State

Hydrographic Institution Bran ch “Ukrmorcartographia;
Edition: 200;

MAP RM A 24 WESTERN PART OF THE BLACK SEA FROM ODESSA
TO SULINA MOUTH ( Published by the Ukrainian State
Hydrographic Institution Branch “Ukrmorcartographia”;

Edition: 2001 - detail of the maritime boundary around
Serpents’ Island);

MAP RM A 25 WESTERN PART OF THE BLACK SEA (Published by the
Ukrainian State Hydrographic Institution Branch

“Ukrmorcartographia”; Edition: 2003

MAP RM A 26 NORTH-WESTERN PART OF THE BLACK SEA FROM
CONSTANŢA TO SEVASTOPOL ( Published by the
Maritime Hydrographic Directorate of the People’s Republic of
Romania; Edition: 195;

MAP RM A 27 WESTERN COAST OF THE BLACK SEA FROM
DNIESTER ESTUARY TO SULINA (Published by the
Maritime Hydrographic Directorate of the People’s Republic of
Romania; Edition: 1959);

MAP RM A 28 WESTERN PART OF THE BLACK SEA FROM THE
MIDIA CAPE TO THE SULINA MOUTH ( Published by

the Hydrographic Directorate ofthe Socialist Republic of
Romania; Edition: 1970);

MAP RM A 29 WESTERN COAST OF THE BLACK SEA FROM THE
MOUTH OF THE SAINT GEORGE ARM TO BUHTA
ŽEBRIJANSKAJA (Published by the Maritime Hydrographic
Directorate of the Socialist public of Romani a; Edition:
1982);

MAP RM A 30 WESTERN COAST OF THE BLACK SEA FROM THE
KALIAKRA CAPE TO THE KILIA ARM ( Published by
the Maritime Hydrographic Directorate of the Socialist
Republic of Romania; Edition: 1985);

254MAP RM A 31 THE WESTERN PART OF THE BLACK SEA ( Published
by the Maritime Hydrographic Directorate of Romania;
Edition: 1993);

MAP RM A 32 WESTERN AREA OF THE BLACK SEA FROM
KALIAKRA CAPE TO THE DANUBE DELTA ( Published
by the Maritime Hydrographic Directorate of Romania;
Edition: 1995);

MAP RM A 33 BLACK SEA WESTERN AREA FROM SULINA TO
ZONGULDAK ( Published by the Maritime Hydrographic

Directorate of Romania; Edition: 1997);

MAP RM A 34 WESTERN COAST OF THE BLACK SEA FROM
KALIAKRA CAPE TO THE KILIA ARM ( Published by
the Maritime Hydrographic Dire ctorate of Romania; Edition:
2000);

MAP RM A 35 WESTERN AREA OF THE BLACK SEA (Published by the
Maritime Hydrographic Director ate of Romania; Edition:
2003);

MAP RM A 36 BLACK SEA ROMANIAN COAST FROM KALIAKRA
CAPE TO THE DA NUBE DELTA ( Published by the
Maritime Hydrographic Director ate of Romania; Edition:

2003);

MAP RM A 37 BLACK SEA. DANUBE DELTA. ACCESS TO SULINA
MOUTH (Published by the General Directorate for Navigation
and Oceanography, Ministry of Defence of the Russian
Federation; Edition 1994)

MAP RM A 38 NORTH-WESTERN PART OF THE BLACK SEA FROM
TUZLA TO YALTA (Published by the Hydrographic Service,
Ministry of Defence of the Republic of Bulgaria, Edition 1993);

MAP RM A 39 BLACK SEA ( Published by the Hydrographic and
Oceanographic Service of the French Navy - Service
Hydrographique et Océanogr aphique de la Marine;dition
1990);

MAP RM A 40 BLACK SEA (Published by the Hydrographic and
Oceanographic Service of the French Navy - Service
Hydrographique et Océanogr aphique de la Marine;dition
1990 - detail of the maritime boundary around Serpents’
Island)

MAP RM A 41 BLACK SEA MAP. SOVIET AND ROMANIAN COASTS

FROM DANUBE DELTA TO IL’ICEVSK ( Published by

255 the German Federal Institute for Maritime Navigation and
Hydrology - Bundesamt fur Seeschi ffart und Hidrologie;
Edition: 1991);

MAP RM A 42 BLACK SEA MAP. SOVIET AND ROMANIAN COASTS
FROM DANUBE DELTA TO IL’ICEVSK ( Published by
the German Federal Institute for Maritime Navigation and
Hydrology - Bundesamt fur Seeschi ffart und Hidrologie;
Edition: 1991 - detail of the maritime boundary around

Serpents’ Island)

256

Document Long Title

Memorial of Romania

Links