海洋法模拟法庭口头答辩.docx

Mr. President, your excellencies, and may it please the tribunal: This case is about how to legally and equitably delimit the maritime boundary between the Applicant and the Respondent, and the Applicant through its counsel respectfully submits four pleadings:First, no customary line delimiting the respective EEZ and continental shelf exists.Second, the appropriate form of the delimitation is a single maritime boundary drawn by the application of the equidistance/special circumstances rule.Third, the Coff Island is a relevant circumstance in this case and it shall be given full delimitation effect in the present case.Forth, the Tribunal has jurisdiction over the delimitation of the continental shelf beyond 200 nautical miles.Now I will proceed to make the first two pleadings and my co-counsel will make the other two pleadings.The Applicant’s first pleading is that there is no customary line delimiting the respective EEZ and continental shelf. Firstly, There is no agreement between the Parties to support the existence of any customary line. Article 74 of UNCLOS provides that only if there is an effective delimitation agreement of the EEZ and the continental shelf between the parties, it may be accorded priority. Otherwise the procedure under UNCLOS should be followed to resolve the delimitation. In the present case, there is no delimitation agreement of the eez and continental shelf brtween the parties. The 1961 Treaty between Krensburg and Allbek is not a delimitation agreement of the EEZ and continental shelf. Initially, in the scope of statute law, the notion of the EEZ only occurs in UNCLOS. Moreover, in the scope of customary law, the rules regarding to the EEZ were established until 1985 and became an essential matter to every coastal states. Besides, the rules of “continental shelf” today is not equivalent to that of 1961 . Comparing the rules regarding to continental shelf in 1958 Convention on the Continental Shelf and 1982 convention on the law of the sea,