Sad day for somalia that ruling seems like 30% of the desputed area was ruled in favour of Kenya.
I do beleive Failmajo sold the 30% as retirement package.
I do beleive Failmajo sold the 30% as retirement package.
ICJ suggests new maritime boundary between Kenya and Somalia and rejects Somalia’s request for reparations.
- Thread starter Grigori Rasputin
- Start date
I’m somewhat interested in what precedent this will spell for the future cases as this could potentially change the future.Win
We are lucky to get most of our claim cus The Maritime boundaries and laws of the Sea aren't as clear as land boundaries and has been revised many times . Some countries didn't even sign the convention and Almost all countries have had some sort of maritime dispute including USA and Canada.
So celebratre Akhi
CanoGeel
"Show respect to all people, but grovel to none"
THIS WAS YuuuuuuGE Win IMO
Delimitation of the Maritime Boundary in the Gulf of Maine Area (Canada/United States of America)
The Chamber delivered its Judgment on 12 October 1984. Having established its jurisdiction and defined the area to be delimited, it reviewed the origin and development of the dispute and laid down the principles and rules of international law governing the issue. It indicated that the delimitation was to be effected by the application of equitable criteria and by the use of practical methods capable of ensuring, with regard to the geographical configuration of the area and the other relevant circumstances, an equitable result. It rejected the delimitation lines proposed by the Parties, and defined the criteria and methods which it considered to be applicable to the single delimitation line which it was asked to draw. It applied criteria of a primarily geographical nature, and used geometrical methods appropriate both for the delimitation of the sea-bed and for that of the superjacent waters. As for the plotting of the delimitation line, the Chamber distinguished between three segments, the first two lying within the Gulf of Maine and the third outside it. In the case of the first segment, it considered that there was no special circumstance precluding the division into equal parts of the overlapping of the maritime projections of the two States’ coasts. The delimitation line runs from the starting-point agreed between the Parties, and is the bisector of the angle formed by the perpendicular to the coastal line running from Cape Elizabeth to the existing boundary terminus and the perpendicular to the coastal line running from that boundary terminus to Cape Sable. For the second segment, the Chamber considered that, in view of the quasi-parallelism between the coasts of Nova Scotia and Massachusetts, a median line should be drawn approximately parallel to the two opposite coasts, and should then be corrected to take account of (a) the difference in length between the coasts of the two States abutting on the delimitation area and (b) the presence of Seal Island off the coast of Nova Scotia. The delimitation line corresponds to the corrected median line from its intersection with the above-mentioned bisector to the point where it reaches the closing line of the Gulf. The third segment is situated in the open ocean, and consists of a perpendicular to the closing line of the Gulf from the point at which the corrected median line intersects with that line. The terminus of this final segment lies within the triangle defined by the Parties and coincides with the last point of overlapping of the respective 200-mile zones claimed by the two States. The co-ordinates of the line drawn by the Chamber are given in the operative part of the Judgment
lol
This overview is provided for information only and in no way involves the responsibility of the Court.
Delimitation of the Maritime Boundary in the Gulf of Maine Area (Canada/United States of America)
Overview of the case
On 25 November 1981, Canada and the United States notified to the Court a Special Agreement whereby they referred to a Chamber of the Court the question of the delimitation of the maritime boundary dividing the continental shelf and fisheries zones of the two Parties in the Gulf of Maine area. This Chamber was constituted by an Order of 20 January 1982, and it was the first time that a case had been heard by an ad hoc Chamber of the Court.The Chamber delivered its Judgment on 12 October 1984. Having established its jurisdiction and defined the area to be delimited, it reviewed the origin and development of the dispute and laid down the principles and rules of international law governing the issue. It indicated that the delimitation was to be effected by the application of equitable criteria and by the use of practical methods capable of ensuring, with regard to the geographical configuration of the area and the other relevant circumstances, an equitable result. It rejected the delimitation lines proposed by the Parties, and defined the criteria and methods which it considered to be applicable to the single delimitation line which it was asked to draw. It applied criteria of a primarily geographical nature, and used geometrical methods appropriate both for the delimitation of the sea-bed and for that of the superjacent waters. As for the plotting of the delimitation line, the Chamber distinguished between three segments, the first two lying within the Gulf of Maine and the third outside it. In the case of the first segment, it considered that there was no special circumstance precluding the division into equal parts of the overlapping of the maritime projections of the two States’ coasts. The delimitation line runs from the starting-point agreed between the Parties, and is the bisector of the angle formed by the perpendicular to the coastal line running from Cape Elizabeth to the existing boundary terminus and the perpendicular to the coastal line running from that boundary terminus to Cape Sable. For the second segment, the Chamber considered that, in view of the quasi-parallelism between the coasts of Nova Scotia and Massachusetts, a median line should be drawn approximately parallel to the two opposite coasts, and should then be corrected to take account of (a) the difference in length between the coasts of the two States abutting on the delimitation area and (b) the presence of Seal Island off the coast of Nova Scotia. The delimitation line corresponds to the corrected median line from its intersection with the above-mentioned bisector to the point where it reaches the closing line of the Gulf. The third segment is situated in the open ocean, and consists of a perpendicular to the closing line of the Gulf from the point at which the corrected median line intersects with that line. The terminus of this final segment lies within the triangle defined by the Parties and coincides with the last point of overlapping of the respective 200-mile zones claimed by the two States. The co-ordinates of the line drawn by the Chamber are given in the operative part of the Judgment
lol
This overview is provided for information only and in no way involves the responsibility of the Court.
It's Yuuuuuuge win considering that the Maritime Boundaries are ambiguous and subject to change based on many different scenarios.Its still a win for somalia
This is a big win. Despite all of Kenya’s foreign backers the courts ruled in favour of Somalia.
We didn’t get the reparations but Kenya has to hand over all the seismic data which costed them millions over to us. Kenya will also have to pay back apparently over 2 billion dollars in advance payment given to them by companies for those blocks.
The small amount unjustly given to them is expected and doesn’t contain our blocks.
We didn’t get the reparations but Kenya has to hand over all the seismic data which costed them millions over to us. Kenya will also have to pay back apparently over 2 billion dollars in advance payment given to them by companies for those blocks.
The small amount unjustly given to them is expected and doesn’t contain our blocks.
Based
VIP
Failmaggio shameless gloating on live TV. We can't beat this guy
How is this a big win?
Is it because Farmajo conceded 30% of it to Kenya as retirement package.
Clowns like your kind are the ones celebrating.
Your reason want genuine yo begin with.
From being pro-Kenya to making things up. The decision was made by the ICJ most people watched it live. It was largely ruled in our favour. Or are you trying to tell people Farmaajo controls the ICJ.
Kenya lost, it’s being reported by international media who have a basic understanding of these things.
That is Ogaden water.
Mofo your ilks made somalia lose 30% to Kenya.
All your objective and propaganda was to use justifications for Kenyan AMISOM to leave Jubbaland( under the reparation demand ) so that your AS relatives have a chance to eat hyena meat and qule in Kismaayo.
I do beleive Farmajo did a deal with Kenya.
But regardless no hunter and Gatherer will ever rule again Kismaayo.
CanoGeel
"Show respect to all people, but grovel to none"
From what I was able to glean in previous cases and the way The UN Law of the Sea convention is worded, It seems that they rarely base a judgement on a precedence even when case facts and legal issues are identical.
They adjudicate each case with many consideration such as Economic, environmental effect and many other factors at heart.
This will give you an idea of how recent and nascent the whole Maritime Laws are and are still evolving.
Maritime boundary disputes: What are they and why do they matter?
When states legalised the maritime domain in the 20th century, the relationship between states and maritime space changed. Since the turn of the mille…
Protracted maritime boundary disputes and maritime laws
(2019). Protracted maritime boundary disputes and maritime laws. Journal of International Maritime Safety, Environmental Affairs, and Shipping: Vol. 2, No. 2, pp. 89-96.
www.tandfonline.com
Progress in International Maritime Boundary Delimitation Law
Progress in International Maritime Boundary Delimitation Law | American Journal of International Law | Cambridge Core
Progress in International Maritime Boundary Delimitation Law - Volume 88 Issue 2
Because the maritime disputes are still widespread through out the world , Countries are also expected to find mutually agreed common ground and to exhaust all options and possibilities before the court even considers to try the case.
Many of these countries that signed some sort of a treaty are now at loggerheads
List of maritime boundary treaties
Last edited:
This is not a victory. I’m disappointed with the out come.
I thought all the waters were ruled to somalia as per international maritime laws after seeing all those celebrations from 68ians,
but seems much part of it were appeased to kenya, so I wonder was the court supposed to judge based on international laws or its mere mandate was only to compromise between the sides.
According to this rule, somalis could file a case against somali territories occupied by kenya and atleast would get part of it, could that ever been possible, big fat no, somalia wouldnt have ever get an inch of land beyond its territories no matter what.
So somali polticians need not to sugarcoat this big humiliation but atleast tell truth to the people that were robbed again in a broad daylight as usual and there is nothing to celebrate when you see the entire world siding anyone against somalis and your country keeps shrinking even in the 21 century
tyrannicalmanager
pseudo-intellectual
“A child does not play with its father's testicles.”
Online booto booto is actually different breed
Trending
-
24 men involved in the r*pe of two young sisters in Lascanood, Sool, Somalia.- Started by Devilsadvocate
- Replies: 43
-
-
